254 EEVISION OF THE GENUS yOTONOMUS, 



Poecilus maryinatus in 1838); and Xewman with one species 

 {Feroniaj)hilipjn = F. chalyhea, Dej.). Nothing further was done 

 till 1865, when Baron de Chaudoir and M. Motschulsky, inde- 

 pendently of one another, and, strange to say, in the same journal 

 (Bull. Mosc. 1865), described a considerable number of new 

 species. Chaudoir's paper contained fourteen new species 

 (of these one, N. discoderus, proved synonymous with H. marginaius, 

 Casteln. ). Motschulsky described four species as new, but three 

 of these were anticipated by Chaudoir. Castelnau's great 

 paper on the Australian Carabidse was read before the Royal 

 Society of Victoria on May 13th, 1867, and was published 

 in Vol. viii. of that Society's Transactions in 1868; in it he pro- 

 posed three hundred and thirt3^-seven species as new, including 

 thirty-eight referable to Notonoiiius. Castelnau's work was done 

 without a knowledge of what Chaudoir and Motschulsky had 

 done, and, mainly owing to this, the names of twenty-one of his 

 species of Notononius have now become synonyms. In 1871 Sir W. 

 Macleay published descriptions of five species; of these it seems 

 that only one will stand. Chaudoir (who evidently liecame 

 possessed of Dejean's types) went over the Castelnau Collection, 

 now the propert}'- of the Museo Civico di Genova, and, in the 

 Annals of that Institution for 1874 (Vol. vi.), published what he 

 called a "Supplement" to his essay of 1865. Knowing at that 

 time all his own, Dejean's, and Castelnau's species (excepting 

 Feronia wilcoxi, Casteln., F. striaticollis, Casteln., and F. rufi- 

 palpis, Casteln., the types of which he could not find), he was 

 able to settle the synonymy of Notonomus authoritatively.* This 

 was fortunate for subsequent workers, for it would have been 

 practically a hopeless task for anyone without the data which 

 Chaudoir possessed, because both Chaudoir's and Castelnau's 

 descriptions of the species of Notonomus are generally very faulty, 

 being too brief, and often consisting of merely a few lines of a 



* I do not feel sure that Chaudoir knew all Motschulsky's species in nature, 

 though he treats of them as confidently as if he did, but without, as far I 

 know, saying that he knew them. 



