38 COLEOPTERA. 



Cat. (?Kunst.)to oelandica, Boh.; Aphtliona euphorhice, 

 All., to vemistidaj Kutsch.; A. atr^ocoerulea, All., to cyanella 

 Redt. 



The following points in connection with this Catalogue 

 appear to me worthy of attention ;— but it is not worth while 

 to enumerate all the abandoned species, the omission of which, 

 it may be remarked, is (with the exceptiou of those specially 

 added subsequently) not due to any oversight on the part of 

 the author : — Notiophilus 4-putictatus, Dej., is considered a 

 good species ; Carabus cancellatus, 111. (of which the Rev. 

 W. Tylden has in his collection a specimen taken at Hythe 

 by Mr. Duboulay) is omitted, though auratus and convexus 

 are retained : Harpalus griseus, Panz., is considered a var. 

 of rujicornis, Fab. ; diffinis, Dej., is, however, not noticed 

 in any way ; HnliplusvariuSj NicoL, is retained; Aleochara 

 Mlitieata, Gyll., is referred as a var. to nitida, Grav. ; 

 Occdea rividaris. Mill., is omitted (Dr. Sharp informs me 

 that it is in his opinion absolutely nothing but castanea, Er., 

 = picata, W. C. ; he has it from various parts of Europe, 

 and no two examples are exactly alike in the form of the 

 thorax. The only British examples of rivnlaris I have seen 

 are several, all exactly alike, taken by Mr. G. R. Water- 

 house near Hammersmith, during a flood, and one taken by 

 myself at the same place); Homaloia fungivoray Thorns., is 

 considered a var. of occulta^ Er. ; MyllcEiia infuscata and 

 minima are omitted, in consequence of a failure to satisfac- 

 torily determine their specific distinctions, when compared 

 with a long series of iniimta, Er. ; the Mycetoporus from 

 Inverness-shire originally brought forward by Dr. Sharp as 

 tenuis, Muls., is now considered distinct from that insect, 

 and queried as pi-obably new ; Quedius semiohscurics, Marsh., 

 accidentally omitted from, and subsequently added to, the 

 Catalogue, should certainly be semiceneus, Stepli., — the se?ni- 



