94 CORYLOPHIDJE. 



Duval's diagnosis and figure are both of them absolutely wrong, it 

 is impossible to regard these two genera as identical. 



Yet, on the other hand, they have so much in common that I can 

 scarcely resist the suspicion that he possibly may have been mis- 

 taken, even on so plain a question as the precise number of antennal 

 joints; though, if this should prove ultimately to have been the 

 case, even then the name of Gloeosoma will not have to be suppressed 

 (as he would fain imply), it being several months prior in publi- 

 cation to that of Moronillus*. 



268. Glceosoma velox. 



Glceosoma velox, Woll, Ins. Mad. 482, tab. x. f. 7 (1854). 

 , Id., Cat. Mad. Col 142 (1857). 



Habitat Maderenses (Mad.), sub lapide in inferioribus semel tantum 

 lectum. 



Hitherto unique a single example which was captured by myself 

 (on the 8th of May 1848) at a low elevation, immediately above the 

 Praia Formosa, in Madeira proper being all that I have yet seen. 



If, as already stated, the present genus is probably distinct from 

 MoroniUus (which must needs be the case, unless the published dia- 

 gnosis of the latter is absolutely erroneous), it follows a priori that the 

 species cannot be identical with the M. ruficollis, to which Duval, 

 nevertheless, unhesitatingly assigned it. But, indeed, were it to be 

 shown ultimately that he was mistaken concerning the details of 

 Moronillus, and that it is in reality congeneric with Gloeosoma, still, 

 even then, I do not think that the velox could be made to quadrate 

 with the ruficollis even though it undoubtedly possesses the same 

 very peculiar sculpture, and has much in common with that insect ; 

 for not only is it a little smaller and paler, and more obovate in 

 outline (or rather more pointed behind), but its elytra are more 

 shortened (as well as diluted in hue) posteriorly. Nevertheless it 

 yet remains for me to add that, if both the genus and species could be 

 proved (in direct opposition to the recorded evidence) to be identical, 



* My 'Ins. Mad.,' which contains Gloeosoma, was published in July 1854; 

 whereas Duval's diagnosis of Moronillus was only read before the French Ento- 

 mological Society on the 28th of the preceding month, so that it could not have 

 been published (at soonest) before quite the end of the year perhaps not before 

 the commencement of 1855. In addition to which fact, his' notice was but a 

 short one and unaccompanied by a figure ; whereas my volume gave not only 

 the various details, but an elaborate plate. Yet, in spite of this, Duval quietly 

 sinks Gloeosoma (in his subsequent work) as a mere synonym of Moronillus ! 

 and that, too, whilst the recorded minutia: of the genera were absolutely at 

 variance. 





