December, 1910. 1 269 



As tli,e male characters iii this genus are so very clistiiictive, I 



think it as well to give a short table of these, which will help in the 



identification of male specimens. 



I. Anterior tibiae strongly bent; posterior femora simple... 



C. latum and C. rufescens. 

 II. Anterior tibiso straight. 



i. Posterior femora terminating in an angixlar tooth at the apex... 



C. angular e and C. viennensei 



ii. Posterior femora simple at the apex, but armed near the centre with 

 a tooth. 



1. Tooth small C. serripes, C. brunneum, and C. deiiticulatum. 



2. Tooth long, curved, and sharply pointed... C. dentipes and C. zebei. 



3. Tooth long and terminating in a tuft of hairs... 



C. appendiculatum and C. calcaratum. 



There can be no difficulty in the identification of the very broad 

 C. latum ; and the long thin anterior tarsi of G. viennense and 

 C. serripes differentiate these from all the rest ; care must be taken, 

 however, not to mistake the comparatively slightly dilated tarsi of the 

 females of such species as C. brunneum, viewed edgeways, for an 

 undilated tarsus. The difference in punctuation between the thorax 

 and elytra is quite a good character. C. dentipes is the only species 

 at all doubtful, as its thorax is more finely punctured than in the 

 others, but is certainly more strongly so than the elytra. Its long 

 parallel form will distinguish it from any of the appendiculatum 

 group, which all have the thorax very finely pvmctured, sometimes 

 even more finely so than the elytra. 



C. angulare is easily recognised by the characters given in the 

 table, especially by the gradual club of the antenna, which is entirely 

 reddish. The close and very deep and distinct pimctviation of the 

 long thorax is quite characteristic. C. rufescens is a very distinct long 

 parallel- sided species, and is the only one with a well marked deep 

 scutellary stria at the base. 



I have pointed out previously (Ent. Mo. Mag. vol. xliv, p. 38) 

 how C. zebei may be distinguished from C. dentipes, and am glad now 

 to have discovered a definite character for the ? , which so very 

 closely resembles a large $ of C. brunneum. In spite of its great 

 variation in size and shape, I have no difficulty in at once recognising 

 C. brunneum by its rather strongly and closely punctured shining 

 thorax, and the shape of the anterior tibiae. The club of the antenna 

 is generally darker, but is usually concolorous with the rest of the 

 antenna. 



Single individuals of the last group are perhaps the most difficult 



