235 



of Uanda^ and took it for granted that my specimen was a typi- 

 cal one of this species, which I now find it is not. Where did 

 the specimens come from, which your father sent to Dejean, 

 and which were the types of his description of blanda? You 

 will observe that Dejean makes no mention of any emargina- 

 tion near the apex of tlie elytra of the female, and indeed he 

 does not note the sexes of his specimens at all. 



HAKRIS TO LECOKTE. 



Cambridge, May 10, 1854. 



Your last communication does not give me all the informa- 

 tion wanted on ^he subject of my last letter, and leaves the 

 question of the identity of the Oicindela Uanda of Dejean more 

 doubtful than ever. 



I beg you to refer to Dejean, Species General, Vol. V, p. 

 238, for the following quotations concerning his blanda, " La 

 levre supSrieure ... a, dans les deux sexes" etc., "ies elytres 

 . . . surtout dans la femelle" etc. See also the remainder of 

 the description. From these quotations it appears that Dejean 

 had both sexes, and certainly the female. Now this being true, 

 or admitted to be true, would Dejean have neglected to describe 

 the remarkable excision of the outer margin of the elytra of 

 the female, if such excision existed in his specimen? I trow 

 not. It appears to me that Dejean must have been culpably 

 negligent in drawing up his description of blanda, or must 

 have mistaken (!) a male for a female, or that the species which 

 you have taken to be blanda is not the real blanda of Dejean. 

 I do not believe that one species would be found to vary to so 

 great an extent as to have emarginated elytra in one female, 

 and entire elytra in another. May not Dejean's C. blanda be 

 some variety of 0. variegata with which he compares it, — or 



