592 Rev. F. W. Hope oh some Nondescript Insects from Assam. 



Spec. 10. LucANUs punctiger. 



Long. lin. 9^. Lat. lin. 4. 



Ater ; corpoie piinctato nitido, thoracis niarginibus externis serratis, elytris 

 sutura parùni elevatâ glabra insignitis, tibiis 4 posticis uuidentatis. 



Toiiim corpus ii\\\nii ct infià nigrum, nitiduni, punctatum. Caput anticè 

 rugoso-punctatuui. Tlinrax niarginibus externis serratis. Eli/fra striato- 

 punctata, sutura panun elevatâ glabra insignita. Pe^/e.y subrugosi, tibiis 

 quatuor pusterioribus unidentatis. 



The above insect appears to be the female of some hitherto unknown Luca- 

 uus; there is an immature variety of it with dark mahogany-coloured wings 

 in Mr. Gri tilth's collection. 



Having now described ten new species of Luvanus from Assam, I proceed 

 to add some few observations respecting the group. 



M. Latreille divided Liicuuus into two, and Mr. W. Sharp MacLcay into 

 tive sub-families. The latter author also formed two sections of Lucuuus, 

 according as the club of the antemia consisted of three or four articulations: 

 a third section ought to be added, when the leaflets of the club consist of five 

 joints, witii the addition of a spurlike joint succeeding them. Now as Luca- 

 iiiis Forsicri and tive other species have the club consisting of live leaflets, 

 there is ample ground foi- instituting a third section, v.'hich nuiy therefore 

 properly be denominated Pentaplii///a. There can be little doubt that the 

 above insect must eventually be formed into a distinct genus; but as at pre- 

 sent I am merely describing species, I pass onwards to more material points. 

 Thnnberg, in his Monograph of Lucanus, published in the first volume of the 

 Moscow Transactions, forms his three divisions from the characters of the 

 mandibles ; by which it appears, first, that they are furcate ; secondlj^ simple, 

 with the iiuier side dentated ; and thirdly, simple and unarmed. Such are 

 the leading characters adopted by authors in their subdivisions of Lucanus. 

 It appears to me, however, that other points well worthy of attention have 

 been neglected (some, indeed, I may say, almost entirely omitted) ; namely, 

 those which relate to the absence or presence of armature on the tibiœ. I 

 therefore here recommend them to notice. 



