Dr. Hcinekcn's Description of Cerascopus- 39 



The only family of Latreille's " Genera, &c." which will admit this 

 insect is the second, Cimicidet. From the section Pfo<ere5 it is excluded 

 by its habits (which are strictly those of a land and in-door animal), its 

 claws, antenncE and rostrum. From the section AcanthillcE, every thing 

 is exclusive: and it can only be admitted within that of Reduvini by a little 

 accommodation. This section contains four genera, viz. ^''abis, Reduvius, 

 Zelus and Ploiaria. In Js^ahis the body is "conico-ovate," the legs " not 

 " long," the cox(B " short," the insertion of the antenncB is ♦* beneath," 

 and the first joint of the rostrum is " not longer than the second." In 

 Reduvius there are the additional discrepancies of the second joint of the 

 rostrum " the longest," and the presence of " ocelli." Of Zelus and 

 Ploiaria, no generic characters are given ; I therefore conclude that they 

 are amenable to those of their predecessor Reduvius, but in the " His- 

 " toire Naturelle, &c." the distinguishing character of Zelus is " pattes 

 " simples, ni ravisseuses, ni tres-courtes," and the Ploiaria there have 

 " le corps long et etroit," " de petits yeux lisses," and " le corselet 

 " assez plat en dessus se retrecissant et diminuant d' epaisseur de son 

 '* bord posterieur a celui de devant." When therefore, in addition to all 

 this, it is excluded for equally good reasons from the numerous genera, 

 either invented or adopted by Leach, which Samouelle has given; and 

 possesses the peculiarities of not even the rudiments (as far as I can 

 ascertain) of eh/tra or wings, of a bowed first joint to the antennce, of 

 using these members as tactors, measurers and explorers, of the second 

 joint oHhe rostrum being palpably the shortest, and of exserted and com- 

 plicated organs of generation ; I hope, that even in this genus-making age, 

 I shall be held justified in offering my small " sum of more, to that which 

 " had too much." Two genera fHoloptile and PetalockeireJ are given 

 in the " Families Nat. &c." with which I am perfectly imacquainted ; 

 should our insect belong to either of them, the name which I have 

 intended as a generic, may easily be converted into a specific one. 

 The details which I have added can in neither case do harm. * 



* Dr. Heinekeu's insect cannot be an Holoptilus, Lepel. and Serv., the 

 antennae in that genus being only three-jointed, with the last two joints fea- 

 thered with long hairs ; nor a Petalockeirus, Pal. de Beauvoir, in which the 

 body is not linear, the legs of only moderate length, and the anterior tibice 

 dilated into the form of a shield. Its nearest relation is io Ploiaria, in whicli 



