216 
REPORT ON ZOOLOGY, MDCCCXLII: 
some remarks on it. Tlie author has introduced a new characteristic, 
namely, the greater or less convexity of the facettes of the eyes. This 
presents, indeed, an excellent distinction, and he has found it constant 
in each genus. Only one striking exception has hitherto occurred to 
me, viz., — in the Ischyrus insignis the eyes are fine grained, while else- 
where in this genus, and even in the allied I. venustus, they are rough. 
The inner maxillary lobe is armed with two hooks in the ErotylincB 
proper ; I find the same in Encaustes, to which the author ascribes a 
simple tooth on the lobe ; and, in fact, this genus, in other respects 
also, joins most closely to Aulacocheilus, On the other hand, a hooked 
(but not with claw-like hooks, therefore unarmed) inner maxillary 
lobe is found in the Triplaoc cenea, whilst in T. russica it has the usual 
protruded quadrangular form. Oocyanus, with the terminal joint of 
both pair of palpi equally large, does not appear to me essentially dif- 
ferent from Ischyrus, where, in the proportions of each terminal joint, 
many varieties are to be met with, and 0. tarsatus (from Cuba, not 
Columbia) completely agrees in the form of the body with the small 
Ischyri, although 0. violaceus differs a little ; the blue colour also is 
present in Ischyrus, and with regard to the generally yellow terminal 
joints of the antennae in the Oocyanus, upon which the author lays so 
much stress, the same is also endemic in the West Indian ones, and 
present in the most different families and genera, even in the Tene- 
hriones (for example Blapstinus), and is therefore to be disregarded 
in this point of view. Among the ErotylincB proper, there are 
several genera only differing in habit (habituellen merkmalen) ; thus 
Erotylus, Zonarius, and Eurycardius, agreeing in all other respects, 
the two latter do not seem to me maintainable as genera. One of the 
most extensive genera and richest in forms, is Brachysphenus, and I 
agree with the author in placing all the forms in one genus; it is 
habit only which separates this genus from JEgithus, and they may 
perhaps yet be united. The Erotylus Buquetii, Lacord., also appears 
to me to be a Brachysphenus. This family is most difficult to arrange, 
and we must do justice to the author, to whom the attempts of previous 
writers were rather perplexing than advantageous, by adding, that he 
has succeeded in his task in a very remarkable manner. The number 
of species described is very great, those of Columbia, indeed, surprisingly 
numerous ; the descriptions extremely clear, so that another monograph 
could scarcely be found which renders its subject so easy, and even, in 
the present case, without plates. 
Dejean has made some observations on the above work (Ann. d. 1. 
Soc. Ent. d. Fr. xi. p. 285), but they do not touch on any thing of 
importance. I may add here, that Chevrolat (Rev. Zool. 1843, p. 79) 
has published his remarks on several of the Erotyli of Fabricius and 
Olivier. It is quite correct, that E. sphacelatus and unifasciatus, F., 
260 
