56 COLEOPTERA. 



no reason to alter my formerly-expressed opinion. With 

 respect to B. nitidulum and affine, I must also say the 

 same, and though in this I differ from those Entomologists 

 who in the above instances have agreed with me, I must 

 confess, that, after examining and comparing an infinite 

 number of examples of each species, I have never found 

 the slightest difficulty in separating them. The different 

 form of the head, less prominent eyes, and the protracted 

 joints of the antennas, and other variations of structure 

 which I mentioned, together with the general habit of ajfine, 

 appear to me too remarkable to admit of its union witk 

 nitidulum. 



M. Jacquelin-Duval next objects to the employment of 

 the name Cicindela rupestris, Linn., for B. fumigation, Dej., 

 on the ground of the anomaly which I referred to (Geod. 

 Brit. p. 197) in respect to the colour of the legs ; and he 

 considers my citation of Paykull as unfortunate, because that 

 author probably alluded to B. obliquum. Now this matter 

 simply resolves itself into the question as to the amount of 

 value we are disposed to attach to the Linnsean types. Ad- 

 mitting even the certainty that Paykull refers to a different 

 species, yet the main fact remains unaffected. There in the 

 Linnasan Collection stands an example (mutilated indeed) of 

 B. fumigatum, labelled Cicindela rupestris, Linn. We 

 may assume that it has stood there as a type from a period 

 antecedent to the date at which the collection was brought 

 to England ; because although we can easily imagine that 

 specimens (particularly if unlabelled) may have been mis- 

 placed through the carelessness of parties examining them 

 (as for instance the two examples of B. littorale referred to 

 by M. Jacquelin-Duval), yet this specimen could scarcely 

 have been introduced at a more recent period, because it is so 

 extremely rai e in England that I know of but four British 



