90 



For an account of the generic characters of the for- 

 mer genus, vide 24th number of the Entomological 

 Magazine for April 1838. 



Sp. 168. Rufibarhis. — This insect by several per- 

 sons has been considered as a Leistus of Frolich ; 

 in Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg, Erichson as- 

 serts it to be a variety of Harpalus fulvipes ; vide 

 page 50, Erster Band. 



Sp. 169. Flavilahris. — Probably a Dioryche Mac- 

 Leay, or rather a Colpodes ? This insect was described 

 from Daldorff's Cabinet : in the Supplement occurs 

 " affinis C. palliato (Selonophoro D.J.) at distinctus 

 et paullo major, elytra striata apice sinuata." It is 

 evident from the above description that it cannot 

 be a Selonophorus ; Mr. MacLeay therefore is pro- 

 bably right in his conjectures, as far as relates to 

 the genus. (Vide Annul. Javan. page 22.) 



Sp. 171. Lividus. — Described originally from 

 Lund's Cabinet ; and is most likely an immature 

 Amara. 



Sp. 173. Notulatus. — From the Fabrician descrip- 

 tion I consider this insect a Panagseus. Mr. Mac- 

 Leay in his Annulosa Javanica regards it as allied 

 to Dromius. 



Sp. 176. Crux major. — Certainly a Panagaus ; 

 tlie following ocncra belong to the family Pana- 

 j»<€id8e. 



