COLEOPTERA. 
87 
dine fere tibiarum, posticorum articulo lo longo, cylindrico-subconico, 
emarginato-truncato, 2o plus duplo breviore, magis conico, apice profunde 
emarginato, cilio laterali utrinque longo, rigido, subspiniformi, extremi- 
tatem sequentis articuli superante, 3o angusto, bilobo, immerso ; ultimo 
longo, clavato, primo paullo breviore, biunguiculato: unguiculis valde 
divergentibus, incurvis, basi crassis, medio subtus unidentatis. 
Etym.: A Ka[AQipa, camera , d'spw, collum . 
Typus: Camaroderes viduus , Jekel, e Para Brasiliae. 
Obs. —This genus participates in its characters with, 1st, Brachytarsus , 
Sch., from which it differs in its more convex form, the structure of the ros¬ 
trum, antennae, eyes, &c. In its short and thick body it should range near 
that genus, but its evidently emarginate eyes remove it to another Schon- 
herrian tribe of the same subdivision, and to the genus Eugonus , from which 
it is entirely different. 1 2 2nd, Plicenithon of the second stirps—to which it is 
also very close, especially in the triangular form of the scutellum, which is 
still larger, but the club of the antennae is very different, as well as the 
shape of the thorax. 3 
1 Rigorously, the Brachytarsi have the eyes emarginate, or at least 
concavely truncate anteriorly, and, indeed, though this character deranges 
the Schonherrian definitions and artificial distribution, I feel satisfied with 
this affinity in the eyes, which corroborates the general similitude of these 
two genera. 
2 Here a second observation upon the generic affinities is necessary. 
Rigorously, also, the antennal groove of some species of Stirps II. in 
the genus Phcenithon (as sernigriseus , Grm., implicatus , Sch., &c.) is elon¬ 
gate, extended beneath, as much, indeed, as in Brachytarsus and the pre¬ 
sent genus; these species, too, differ much from the Phcenithoni of Stirps 
I. I am inclined to believe that the Schonherrian characters of the sub¬ 
divisions and tribes in the Anthribidce are merely artificial (and not only 
so, but they are not rigorous, being also as we have here seen erroneous) 
and separate genera which should be reunited. Have we not, as a last 
proof, the greatest difficulty and reluctance, when we are forced to place in 
different subdivisions the Ptychoderi and the American Phlceotragi , which, 
certainly, are more congeneric than the latter and the African species 
of the same Schonherrian genus ? 
