LUCANUS AND HISTER. 35 



tlon of the Cetoniidce to the Lucanidce, on account of the 

 bifid clypeus of the GoViathi bearing a resemblance to the 

 gigantic mandibles of Lucmuts, one can only express 

 astonishment that Latreille should be able to reconcile 

 himself, by such very fanciful reasoning, to an arrangement 

 so e%'idently unnatural. Both Cetonia and Lucanus are 

 without doubt insects which hve on vegetable juices; but 

 then the maxilla of the foraier is a thin membranaceous 

 plate proper for the expression of the nectar of flowers, 

 whereas the maxilla of Lucanus is a long delicate brush of 

 quite a different form, though extremely well contrived for 

 its object — to lick up the sap flowing from the wounds of 

 trees*. 



Let us now examine the genus Lethrus, which ap- 

 pears to have opposed as many difficulties to entomolo- 

 gists as Sinodendron : — it will be interesting to see this 

 hitherto anomalous insect occupying the important place 

 of a link between the Petalocera and Rectdcera. Scopoli 

 first instituted the genus ''; and Fabricius added a new 

 species % from its possessing the convex form of body, in- 

 fundibuliform clava to the antennas, porrect mandibles, and 

 setose maxillae, which so strongly characterized the type. As 

 however this new insect was supposed to want the labrum, 

 and its maxillce also were penicilliform, Schreibers asserted 

 it to be a Lucatms^. Fabricius had previously hinted 

 that it might prove a new genus, and Latreille accordingly 

 placed it under the name JLamprima among his Lucanides. 

 Now it is evident that these three great naturalists were 

 all so far right, and only wrong in that Fabricius was not 

 able to connect it with Lucanus, nor Schi'eibers and La- 



" nut. Nat. des Crust, et dea Ins. vol. x. p. 243. 



'' Scop. Inlr. Hist. Nat. p. 459. '' Syst. Etntlu vol. i. p. S. 



'' Tar^s. Lmn. Sjc. vol, vi. p. 185. 



D 2 



