196 Mr. G. Lewis on the XXVI. — On the Cetoniidge of Japan, loith Notes of new Species, Synonymy, and Localities. Bj GeorGE Lewis, F.L.S. This family, so fai-as is known at present, is represented in Japan by twenty-four species. Mr. Waterhouse, in the Trans. Ent. Society, 1875, recorded fourteen species, but one of these, Glycyphana Sieboldi, Voll., is now given as a syno-nym, and another, Trichias fisciatus, Linn., appears to have been recorded as Japanese by Motschulsky in error. Twelve species, therefore, have been recently added, bringing the number to about one third of those in Europe ; but there are nine genera in Japan to only six on the Continent. Judging from the records of the literature relating to the Cetoniidai it would a])pear that naturalists have been unable to master the specific ciiaracters of the group. Thus Cetonia aurata, Linn., C. f oralis, Fabr., and C. jloricola, Herbst, have, according to the Munich Catalogue, 87 names to repre-sent the types and their varieties, and Trichius ahdominalis, Mdnc^tr., has 18. For these 105 names we find about 40 sponsors. The commoner the species the more numerous the titles, and it appears therefore fortunate when a species is unique. An author cannot give two names to one specimen, although, if not properly labelled, it may obtain a second on changing ownership. A reference to the ' Zoological Record ' will show that re-cently, to increase the confusion, writers have initiated ''^ pro-hahle " synonyms. Harold says (C. R. Ent. Belg. xxiii. p. 5), "that Cetonia Bensoni, Westw., probably = Glycy-phana pilifer, Motsch. ;" Schaufuss records (Nunq. Ot. iii p. 560), " that probably Frotelia (sic) hrevitarsis, Lewis = Cetonia suhmarmorea, Burm, * ;" Kraatz tells us (Deutscli ent. Zeit. xxvii. p. 317) that 'â– 'â– Microi^cecila Bremer i, Jans, probably =M. cincta, Gory, $ ;" and in another place '"'' Dip>hognatha incoides, 1 horns., probably =-D. adinixa Hope." Italics are insufficient to indicate these speculations, and capitals are too distinctive. Of the 105 names given above 101 stand, as stated, as synonyms in Harold's Catalogue ; but it is impossible not to doubt that these may require revision, for is it possible to unravel such a tangled mass of nomenclature in its en-tirety ? * Schaufuss misquotes here ; the sentence should read : '' prohably Cetonia breiiifargis, Lewis, ^Protcetia svbmarmorea, Burm."
BioStor
