222 [October, 



15 (14). (^ . — First joint of antonnre nearly cylindrical, simple on the inner side, 



the inner apical anu-le a little produced: second joint as in Indhifer. 

 9 . — First joint of antennae not twice as Ion"' as wide... 



clavicornis, Panz. 



16 ( 1 ) . Elytra nearly or quite inipiinctate glah ratus, Rye. 



Colesborne, Cheltenham : 



September 4th, 1913. 



TRIBOLIUM CASTANEUM, Herbst = FERRUGINEUM, Auct. (wee Fab.) 



BY K. «. BLAIE, F.E.S. 



{Published by permission of the Trustees of the British Mnseuiu). 



Ill the Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) XVII, pp. 230-231, 

 Mr. C. 0. Waterliouse publislied a re-description of the type of 

 " Tenehrio ferrnginens, Fab.," still preserved in the British Museum, 

 drawing attention to the fact that it belongs to the family Cucujidx, 

 and that the insect kno-wn in our collections as " Triholinm ferrugi- 

 neum, F.," which had been wrongly identified, " will have to bear a 

 different specific name." Mr. Champion followed (Eiit. Mo. Mag., 

 1896, p. 82) by disputing this eouclusiou. While admitting that the 

 original description of Tenehrio ferrvgineus by Fabricius (Spec. Ins. 

 I, 1781, p. 324) certainly did not refer to our insect, he contends that 

 the Tenehrio ferruginens of the " Mantissa Insectorum," 1, 1787, p. 212, 

 or the Trogoaiia ferrtiginea of the " Entomologia Systematica," 1, 1792, 

 p. 116, may quite well refer to oiu- species, and says that in these 

 works " no reference whatever is made to the original description in 

 the Species Insectorum." He continues -. " It is perfectly evident that 

 he (Fabricius) confused more than one species under the name ferrngi- 

 nens, and till the contrary is proved the name ferrnginens (1787) can 

 be retained for the Triholinm.'' Grebien, in Junk's " Coleopterorum 

 Catalogus," 1911, accepts Champion's view, and cites the insect as 

 T. ferrnginenm, F., Mant. Ins. I, 1787, p. 212. But this Tenehrio 

 ferrnginens (1787) is an absolute homonym of Tenehrio ferrnginens 

 (1781), and I'onsequeutly, even if difPering in meaning from its previous 

 usage, is invalid. We have no evidence, liowever, that a different 

 meaning is intended. Though Mr. Chanij)ion says that in the two later 

 descriptions no reference whatever is made to the original description, 

 this is hardlv correct. As recrards the " Mantissa," no reference is 



