Rev. A. Matthews im the (jeims ^Viuhlyopimis. 277 



of the triaugular portion, whieli mny therefore constitute the 

 true Epiineron. Antl if these processes were produced until 

 they met behind the anterior coxaj, which in some species they 

 very nearly do, they would then completely enclose the coxEe, 

 and jiresent a form entirely analagous to the prothoracic episterua 

 and epimera of Trichopteryr. This anatomical definition is also 

 more likely to be correct on account of the high development of 

 tlie Brachelytra as a class, which will hardly permit the universal 

 disappearance of any important portion of the anatomical struc- 

 ture of the true Colet)pterous type. 



It appears to me that Aviblyvpinus is much more closely allied 

 to Philonthus than to any other genus ; indeed, the only ana- 

 tomical difference between them consists in the prolongation of 

 the fi'ontal plate, and in the peculiarly placed and almost rudi- 

 mentary eye of the former, I might also add, in the deflexed 

 angles of the prouotum. But for these differences I should 

 at once have concluded that at least the present species had been 

 a true Philonthus. All this, howeA'er, may not aiiect the species 

 described by M. Solskv. 



If the insect Avhich I have examined be a true Aiublyd/u'inis, 

 1 should place that genus among the " Staphylini (jeniiini,'" of 

 Dr. Erichson, and in close proximity to Philonthus. When we 

 consider the intimate anatomical affinity between Philonthus and 

 Quedins, it seems unnatural to separate those genera by the 

 interval occupied in some lists by Staphylinus and its immediate 

 allies, and that the arrangement would be improved by placing 

 Anihlyojrinns as the connecting link between them. In the 

 present species we find the form and outline of a true Philon- 

 thus, combined with the distinctive characters of A/nblyojnnus. 



I have thus noticed the principal points in which Aiiiblyopinns 

 either differs fi'om or agrees Avith the various genera to which 

 it seems to bear any affinity ; and having done this, will not 

 enter upon a detailed description of each separate part. 



By the figures and diagrams in the accompanying plate it Avill 

 be seen that tlic oigans of the moutli are almost identical Avith 

 the corresponding jiarts of both Cluedivs and Philonthus ; the 

 .■iamc similarity also ])revails throughout the Avhole anatomy, 



