1870.] 151 
Tn all the specimens of Mr. Moncreaff’s insect that I have recently examined 
the scape of the antenne is equally dilated at the base, the joints of the funiculus 
are equally stout and short, and the claws of the anterior legs are not connate ; so 
that, unless all are of the same sex, none of the recorded sexual differences of 
Cathormiocerus are exhibited. Those differences appear to be of a somewhat 
promiscuous nature, as an excess of development in the antenna is apparently 
common to both sexes, the funiculus being sometimes much thicker in the 2, and 
the scape dilated or curved (or both) in the ¢; sometimes, also, the 9 has the 
tarsi of the four anterior legs with free claws, whilst they are connate in the g; 
and sometimes no sexual discrepancy is evident. It seems very doubtful, how- 
ever, from Seidlitz’s observations, whether in certain species the thickened scape 
be really indicative of the g only. 
I fully expect that future Entomologists will consider Cathormiocerus as not 
generically separable from Trachyphleus. After stating that individual forms of 
the two come very near each other, the only reliable distinguishing character that 
Seidlitz can establish for the former is that its under-side is clothed with shining, 
granuliform, connate (and therefore not to be abraded) scales, instead of simple 
dull scales as in the latter. This strictly superficial character is, indeed, evident 
when such insects as ©. curvipes and T. scaber are compared; but T. squamulatus, 
alternans and aristatus, as far as my experience goes, do not possess the scaling 
supposed to be peculiar to Trachyphleus, being, at the very least, intermediate 
in that respect between 7’. scaber and the shining, granulated under-surface of 
Cathormiocerus ; whilst the insect above recorded as T. myrmecophilus is scarcely, if 
at all, distinguishable as to its abdominal surface from Cathormiocerus,—as, indeed, 
might almost have been inferred from Seidlitz’s observations, whose evidently 
accurate eye compels him more than once to assimilate that species with others of 
the supposed different genus. Apart from this, it seems unreasonable to consider 
differences in the opacity or density of scales or granulations as worthy of affording 
generic characters. LHrirhinus ethiops and E. bimaculatus, Strophosomus limbatus 
and 8S. coryli, Apion astragali and A. malve, Phyllobius viridicollis and P. wni- 
formis, Otiorhynchus atroapterus or O. rugifrons and O. septentrionis, with other 
Curculionide, at once suggest themselves as instances of congeners widely differing 
in such a superficial way. The extreme development of the antennz in some 
Cathormioceri (accompanied by peculiarities in the antennal furrows), being mostly, 
if not entirely, sexual, and not being found in all the species, deserves no particular 
stress as a generic character, and is quite equalled by the peculiar structure of the 
tibiee in some Trachyphlei, Seidlitz, indeed, does not urge this point, and even 
acknowledges that in C. lapidicola, Chevr. (for which, in spite of its being one of 
the most outré species, Brisout’s genus Schawmius is rejected by him), the unusual 
dilatation of the hind tibiz is a reproduction of the structure found in the first 
group of Trachyphleus. When we remember that even C. socius was disbelieved 
as British, it seems not improbable that an erroneous supposition as to the species 
of Cathormiocerus being restricted to the countries of the Mediterranean may have 
hitherto contributed not a little to the idea that those species were generically 
distinct from Trachyphleus.—E. C. Ry, 10, Lower Park Fields, Putney, S.W., 
November, 1870. 
