70 
AFRICAN CETONIIDvE. 
beautiful insect, which is a native of the Gold Coast, Africa. 
Fig. 1 a represents its maxilla, both lobes of winch are furnished 
with a strong tooth; fig. 1 h, the extremity of the deeply-cleft 
menturn and the labial palpi; and 1 e, the mesosternum. 
The Rev. F. W. Hope first proposed the genus Mecynorhina in 
his “ Coleopterist’s Manual,” part 1, p. 60, 1837. He, however, 
added Goliatlius micans, Daphnis, and Grallii, to Polyphemus; but 
in the Supplement to that work, p. 119, he restricted it to the last- 
named insect, stating that a second species is in the possession of 
Mr. Joseph Hooker, of Glasgow, which he considered as undescribed; 
but which, I am able to state, is the male of Goliatlius torquatus *. 
Mr. MacLeay has, however, separated Polyphemus and Torquatus 
into distinct subsections (as shown in his arrangement of theGoliathif, 
abstracted at page 6 of this work,) in consequence of the difference 
in the armature of the head of the males. The male of G. torquatus, 
however, has two short lioms in front of the eyes, although the 
extremity of the middle horn is not forked. The two species, how¬ 
ever, precisely agree in the armature of the tibise in both sexes, and, 
which is of more importance, in the structure of the maxillae and 
menturn, as well as in the velvety clothing of the upper surface. 
These two insects, therefore, constitute a group of precisely equal 
rank with Dicronorhina Hope {Atlas, Lap. Hist. Hat. An. Art. 
Col. v. 2, p. 162) ;—EudiceUa, White (Gol. Grallii, Daphnis, 
Smithii, Morgani, &c., in which the males have the mando 
toothless, although in the females it is armed with a strong 
tooth, and the fore tibiae toothed only on the outside in the males); 
and Coelorrhina, Burmeister MSS. (Gol. 4. maculatus, Olivier); 
the last-named group being distinguished by the male having the 
anterior tibiae entirely destitute of teeth, and the clypeus concave in 
front with a short central recurved horn dilated at the tip, like a 
* Schonhcrr evidently changed the name of this species to avoid confusion with Cctonia 
torquata of Fabricius, a different species. In the male of M. torquata (as appears from Mr. 
Joseph Hooker’s drawings, and Dr. Burmeister’s manuscripts) the inando is unarmed ;in the 
female, however, in Mr. Hope’s collection I find it furnished with a strong tooth. Mecynor¬ 
hina thus differs from Eudicella, chiefly in the armature of the fore tibia? of the males. 
+ The various facts stated in the first article of this work and in the present paper, together 
with the circumstances that Goliathus Hopfneri is most nearly allied to Ischnostoma (accord¬ 
ing to the manuscripts and figures of Dr. Burmeister), and that the Coryphe (Nancius) olivaceus 
of MacLeay and the Goliathus (Dicronocephalus) opalus of MacLeay, are sexes of the same 
species, (Dr. Burmeister having shown me M. Dupont’s original specimens) will render neces¬ 
sary an entire revision of the Goliath id cous Cctoniida', whilst the removal of Crvptodus to the 
Dynastidae, Macroma to the Cremastocheilides,and Philistina (or Mycteristes) to the Goliathides, 
will render equally necessary a revision of the classification of the entire family of Cetonikhe. 
+ A more important character of this group than has hitherto been noticed has been sug¬ 
gested to me by Professor Burmeister, namely, the w*ant of a tooth to the lower lobe of the 
maxilla. This I find to be the case in both sexes. 
