242 
inserted close to (or behind) the base of the tarsus, claws simple, 
mentum of normal form (not as in Z'einogenys, &c.), head not 
armed with a horn in either sex, clypeal suture not or scarcely 
angulate in the middle, sides of clypeus not sinuate, mandibles 
invisible in repose, labrum strongly prominent, front marginal 
furrow of prothorax not or scarcely angulate hindward in middle, 
apical ventral segnient traversed by a transversely sinuous furrow 
much more strongly defined in the female than in the male. All 
the species that I have examined are fulvo-hirsute on the underside 
and none of them have organs of stridulation. Hleven species 
have been attributed to this genus, of which two (Jon and 
porcellus) are Boisduval’s and are said to be identical with cwrtus, 
Guér., and latipes, Guér., respectively. As there is no evidence 
from Boisduval’s descriptions that they are members of this 
genus I have no opinion as to the correctness of this alleged 
synonymy, but at any rate Zion and porcellus may be eliminated 
from the list of valid species of Cheiroplatys. (Scarabeus) 
curtus, Guér., has been erroneously associated with Cheiroplatys, 
as Burmeister has pointed out. That learned author considers 
from the description that it is probably a Dasygnathus ; to me 
the description reads more like that of a Semanopterus. To this 
latter genus I think Castlenau’s species (Phileurus subcostatus) 
must certainly be referred, while (as pointed out above) 
C. pecwarius, Reiche, is an Isodon. Sir W. Macleay’s two species 
(both from tropical Australia) seem to me very doubtfully refer- 
able to this genus, inasmuch as one of them (C. inconspicuus) is 
described as having its clypeus “broadly rounded and slightly 
emarginate in front” (a form to which no Cheiroplatys that 
IT have seen approaches) and the other (C. occidentalis) as 
having its front tibie “bluntly tridentate” externally. If the 
type of C. occidentalis is a male (as the description implies) I 
doubt its being rightly placed in the genus; if it is a female it 
may be a Cheiroplatys, but in either case 1 am quite confident [ 
have not seen it. Thus of the eleven species that have been 
associated with Cheiroplatys tive must be definitely rejected, and 
two if rightly placed in the genus are very abnormal species that 
T have not seen. Of the remaining four I think I know C. melius, 
Er., and I have examples which seem likely to be C. latipes, 
Guér., and juvencus, Burm. (as there does not seem to be any 
means of arriving at certainty on these identifications I propose 
furnishing characters that will enable these two species to be 
recognised, and claiming those names for them until cause be 
shown to the contrary). C. levipes, Burm., I am fairly certain 
I have notseen. It is described as a large species (one inch long) 
with the clypeus strongly elevated in front, with the prothorax 
strongly punctulate in front but smooth along the base and 
