272 [December, 



there are now in the National Collection two s}x;cimens of ai^gentatus 

 labelled — apparently with especial care* — the one '■'' argentatus''' and 

 the other '''■feroxT Both these, however, are very fine and quite 

 unmistakable ye?HaZes ! 



All the other species Avere described, as Shuckard tells us, from 

 examples in the British Museum, believed to be British, and placed as 

 such in the Collection. But in every case he failed to get any informa- 

 tion as to the locality in which they had been taken. 



Representatives of all these forms — in all probability the actual 

 specimens examined by Shuckard — may still be seen in the British col- 

 lection at S. Kensington ; and one specimen of each bears a label in 

 F. Smith's handwriting which indicates it as the " Type " of the species. 

 I have recently had opj^ortunity to study them carefully, and have made 

 notes on them as follows. (For the most part, I should add, these notes 

 only confirm the conclusions arrived at by authors who have studied 

 Shuckard's descriptions without examination of the actual types.) 



1. hellicosus. — There is only one specimen (a cJ ) of lineatus F. 

 ( = helIicosus Oliv.). Shuckard calls it a $ — a mistake which F. Smith 

 corrected in 1856, " it is certainly a male! " But, in 1858, Smith made 

 the original confusion worse confounded by saying that " Shuckard 

 described it as ad. It is certainly a female "(!!). 



2. '♦ l4!-ff lit fafus:'— The collection contains 1 d and 2 $ ? of 

 lA-notatus S\xy. ( = 14>-nofatus Oliv.). Shuckard says, however, "I do 

 not know the S ." 



3. nigrlconiis. — There are two specimens so-called, both cer- 

 tainly (!) males, yet botli Shuckard and Smith describe the two sexes 

 and indicate certain differences between them. Were they simply mis- 

 taken ? or is the $ lost, or removed to another part of the collection ? 

 The d J , I feel sure, are both examples of urijcniidiis, and therefore 

 identical with ferox Shuckard ! This seems strange ; but he may have 

 described the Museum specimens at one time and his own at another, 

 without comparing them. Had he compared them, I think he could 

 hardl}' have doiibted their identity. (Or, possil)!}-, his own '■'■ferox^'' like 

 that now in the Museum, may, after all, have been a $ . But as he 

 knew and described '■'■ argentatus $" this seems unlikeh' !) (The name 

 nigricornis, Shuckard tells us, was "given to him" b}^ Samouelle, who 

 was then in charge of the Collection.) 



* The names are written with extreme neatness, not in ordinary "cursive," but in an exact 

 imitation of printed (italic) type. Mr. B. B.Woodward has helped me in comparing these labels 

 with autograph letters, etc., of Shuckard, Stephens, Smith, Samouelle, etc., etc., but we could come 

 to no conclusion as to who probably wrote them. 



