COLEOPTERA. i7/ 
insect taken by the Rey. Matthews, near Lincoln (which is now in Mr. 
Gorham’s _collection) belongs, however, to quite another genus ; it is 
the true substriatus of Paykull, is a longer and darker beetle, and has 
the club of the antenna perfoliate, with the two basal joints not pro- 
ae inwardly, and the punctures of the elytra arranged in striae. 
In “Some Observations on the Coleopterous Family Bostrichidae} ” 
(Ann. May. Nat. Hist., 1888, pp. 348-50) Mr. C. O. Waterhouse pro- 
posed the generic name of Stephanopachys for this insect, being the 
Dinoderus of many authors but not of Stephens. This name has been 
adopted in the last Kuropean catalogue (1891, p. 234), where the 
synonymy of two of these species is given as follows :— 
“ Dinoderus, Stephens—bifoveolatus, Woll., ‘Col. Hesp.,’ 110 (siculus, Baudi., 
B., 1873, 336). Substriatus, Steph. (nec., Payk.).” 
“« Stephanopachys, Waterhouse (1888)—substriatus, Payk., Kiesw., 30, E. Quad- 
ricollis, Frm., Ab., 1879, 83.” 
There seems to have been some doubt as to which of these two 
species Stephens’ description of Dinoderus refers (see Gorham Proc. 
Zool. Soc., 1898, pt. ii., p. 829), but it appears to me, without doubt, 
that he was talking about the former of these two insects, which 
is the species in his collection. Stephens says (Manu., vol. iil., p. 252) 
that the two basal joints of the club of the antenne are conic- 
trigonate, and produced within, the elytra retuse posteriorly and 
inclining to castaneous, and the length 14 lin., all these points could 
only refer to the former of these insects. He expresses doubt as to 
whether his insects are the same as the substriatus, Payk., and men- 
tions that, unlike that species, the pair he has from the New Forest 
have the puncta irregular and not arranged in strie. 
Mr. Waterhouse (/.c.) considers that the substriatus, Steph., is the 
Apate minutus, F.; this cannot be absolutely proved, as the type is no 
longer in the Banksian collection, but it appears very probable. M. P. 
Lesne (Rev. d. Bostich Ann. d. France, 1897, pp. 849-50) takes the 
same view, but he points out that the minutus, I*,, is not the same 
species as the biforeolatus, Woll., and, therefore, the substriatus, Steph., 
is not the bifoveolatus, Woll. He separates minutus and bifoveolatus 
thus :— 
a. Ponctuation de la déclivits postérieure des elytres 
trés forte, confluente, aréolaire, non distinctement 
ocellée au moins aussi enfoncée que celle des 
parties basilaires. cusson brillant ee . D. bifoveolatus, Woll. 
b. Ponctuation de la déclivité postérieure des elytres 
nettement ocellée, non confluente, moins enfoncée 
que celle des parties dorsales. Ecusson mat ... D. minutus, FP. 
Mr. E. C. Rye (Ent. Ann., 1863, p. 98) pointed out that the 
Dinoderus substriatus of Stephens was not, as had been supposed, the 
insect known by the same name to continental naturalists, but belonged 
to a different genus. He, however (/.c.), erroneously attributed Mr. 
G. Lewis’ capture at Darenth to the substriatus, Payk. It is the 
Dinoderus pilifrons, Lesne. He separates it from the minutus, F. 
(L.c., p. 822), as follows :— 
a. Foyéoles médianes de Vaire postérieure du pronotum 
obsolétes. Region frontale hérissée sur les cdtés 
de crins dressés, denses, assez longs a .. LD. pilifrons, Lesne. 
+ It is much to be regretted that this paper was never recorded in the Zoologi- 
cal Record, 
