374 Mr. G. Lewis on 
LII.—On the Lamellicorn Coleoptera of Japan, and 
Notices of others. By G. Lewis, F.L.S. 
ALTHOUGH twenty years have elapsed since the publication 
of Waterhouse’s paper on the Lamellicornia of Japan in the 
‘ Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,’ his 
memoir remains the only important one on this section of the 
Japanese Coleoptera. Approximately Waterhouse enume- 
rated 100 species, and my list to-day gives but 123. There is 
an unexpected limit to the number of the species. ‘The fauna 
fails in Aphodii, of which I have no new species to record, 
and in this respect corresponds with the tropical region of 
Eastern Asia; and it lacks Onthophagi, which in Southern 
and Central China are particularly numerous. It is possible 
that the finest species are local and remain to be discovered. 
No species of Huchirus is at present known to occur in the 
Archipelago, but it is very probable one exists, and it should 
be sought for in autumn in the large elevated forests of the 
central and southern provinces. 
The Cetoniide are not generally dealt with here, because 
they were the subject of an article in this Magazine in 1887 
(xix. pp. 196-202), and beyond two species of Cetonta described 
by Janson in 1888 and one new species of Paratrichius 
described in the note at the end of this paper, there is nothing 
further to record. 
I consider that the following species have been erroneously 
included in the catalogues and papers on the Japanese Coleo- 
ptera, and I have not given their names a place in my list :— 
Onthophagus dama, F.; Geotrupes splendidus, F.; Serica 
brunnea, L.; Phyllopertha horticola, L.; Phyllopertha 
arenaria, Brullé; Anomala oblonga, Scop.; and Mimela 
testaceoviridis, Blanch. Regarding the synonymy set forth 
in the List of Species, I believe it is correct; and when it 
differs from lists previously published I have given in the 
body of this paper the reasons for my conclusions. 
Three species of Aphodii have been very indifferently 
described by Motschulsky, and Waterhouse, failing to refer 
them to any species in the collection formerly in his hands, 
transcribed Motschulsky’s descriptions verbatim, to enable 
students not having the ‘Etudes’ to judge of their value. 
After studying Motschulsky’s papers and becoming familiar 
with the author’s work generally, I think I have assigned 
his names to the right species; but in consideration of the 
incompleteness (and, in one case, false measurement) of his 
descriptions, I think his names are not entitled to the right 
