BY WHICH THE VINE IS INFESTED. 195 
error of this estimable archeologist is a slight one, since the Scara- 
beus Mimas is a Copris as well as the Midas of Egypt, which it re- 
sembles even almost to its colours. There is therefore reason to think 
that the Egyptian stone mentioned by M. Millin represented the eens 
Midas which M. Savigny discovered in Egypt. , 
The third species of Scarabeus employed, according to Bia, as an 
amulet against the effects of the quartan ague, was ae the Fuller 
(Fullo). This insect was spotted with white; and the mode of em- 
ploying it was to divide it into two portions, one of which was affixed 
to each arm, while the two other species of insects of which we have 
treated were attached. only to the left arm. “ Zertium, qui vocatur 
Fullo, albis guttis, dissectum utrique lacerto adligant, cetera sinistro.” 
All Pliny’s commentators:are:silent. upon this remarkable passage, and 
upon the.insect named Fullo by the Romans; but, naturalists have not 
been equally careless. _Mouffet, whose work appeared after,his death 
in .1634, describing the largest species of Chafer of our climates, 
which is nearly an inch and a half in length, and is distinguished with 
facility by the brilliant white spots upon its corselet and elytra, com- 
bats the opinion of those who consider the Fudlo of Pliny as a Copris 
or a Forficula, and supposes that by this name the Roman naturalist 
intended to denote the large species.of Chafer with white. spots which 
he (Mouffet) had just described*. Ray, whose History of Insects was 
published in 1710, is of the same opiniont ; and lastly, M. Schcenherr, 
in his laborious work specially devoted to the synonymy of insects, cites 
Pliny for his Melolontha Fullo +. 
It is with regret that I contest an apinicn apparently so well estas 
blished by the suffrages of so many eminent naturalists ; but my own 
observations are opposed to it. I have examined a great number. of 
antique stones upon which insects were sculptured or engraved, some 
of which have perhaps been used as amulets, for they were pierced in 
a manner adapted for suspension. at the neck, and they all represented 
either Coprophagi or Cetonie §. Not one of them can belong to a 
species of Chafer, which may be easily distinguished. from the in- 
sects previously.mentioned by a more lengthened form. . The fact is 
the same with regard to the obelisks, and all the monuments of Egypt 
of which drawings have been published. I herespeak only of the 
Scarabzei or Coleoptera, and not of the species of. Bee or Wasp sculp- 
tured upon the obelisks at Luxor||. M.Latreille, who has been engaged 
in a similar examination, has arrived at the same conclusion. 
* Mouffet, Insect., sive minimorum Animalium Theatrum, 1684, folio, p. 160. 
+ J. Ray, "Hist. Tnsect., 1710, 4to, p. 93. 
t C. J. Scheenherr, Synonymia Tarot part iii. Upsalia, 1817, 8vo, p. 164, 
§ There are Coprides, but no Cetoniae among the Scarabzi at the Biblio- 
théque du Roi, but I have seen many of the latter in several other collections. 
|| [What insect was really intended to be represented by the sculptures here 
