156 
INSECTA SAUNDEKSIANA. 
late tried to prove their want of resemblance to the other Rhynchopliori, 
by transferring them to his ‘ Coleoptera Baculicornia,’ between his 
Cucujidag and Parandridse. 
Imhoff has also proposed in the above-quoted work (ii. p. 209, 
section Attelabides) the reunion of most of these small groups, but 
I rather differ in opinion regarding the composition of this “ Section,” 
as well as of his other sections of Paeodognathica and Baculicornia 
corresponding to Schonherr’s Curculionides. 
1st. I regard the Camarotides as requiring to be transferred to the 
vicinity of Prionomerus, Ctenomerus, Pristimerus, and many other 
short-nosed Mecorbyncbi (!) of Schonherr, whose anterior femora are 
extremely ampliate and denticulate inside, genera that are so different 
from the majority of Erirhinides, Sch. 
The antennae of Camarotus are really geniculate, their scapus 
is hardly shorter than in the above-cited genera, and the groove of its 
rostrum is elongate, oblique, can aliform ; the armature of its anterior 
femora still more increases this presumption. It might very likely be 
possible, in joining to these all the Schonberrian Curculionidae Gona- 
toceri whose pygidium is exposed, to form a large special subdivision, 
divided into as many groups as should be necessary for their natural 
distribution.* Then, we might see Magdalinus and Lagmosaccus, &c. ; 
Nerthops and Pristimerus, See.; Phytobius, Cceliodes, Ceutoihyuchus, 
and their aberrant genera ; Lamirus, Coryssomerus, Dorasomus, &c. ; 
Germar’s Pcecilmas or Zygopides, many Cholides, Baridides and 
Cionides, &c., exhibiting a vast and natural assemblage of genera so 
very different from — and really equal in rank and value to — the 
remaining Mecorhynchi of Schonherr (Calandridse and Cossonidae of 
course included). 
2nd. Ulocerus, I regard, with Irahoff, as properly belonging to the 
Brenthidae, by having similar sexual differences in the rostrum, the same 
station of antennae, as well as a similar constitution of the two basal 
rings of the abdomen, &c.; but Episus cannot be removed from 
Bracliyceridae, although wanting a channel in the antennal groove of 
* V. Jekel, Bull. Soc. Entom. France, 1855, p. xxvi. Gerslaecker, 
Bericht, &c., fur 1855 (1857), p. 75. 
