36 COLEOPTERA. 



tula^ and is apparently almost as common as that insect, to 

 \vhich it is closely allied, being in the Philocthus group, 

 with the posterior angles of the thorax siib-emarginate. It 

 differs however from gut tula in having the elytra shorter, 

 more convex, more decidedly oval (they are oblong-ovate 

 in the latter), and without any red sub-apical spots, the ex- 

 treme apex only being sometimes of a faint reddish tone ; 

 the thorax is broader, with the sides more rotundate, and the 

 basal foveas not extending quite so far upwards 3 altogether 

 it is a shorter, broader, and more convex insect. In colour 

 also it differs from JB. guttula, being deep black with a faint 

 purplish tinge, and never exhibiting any aeneous tendency. 



The description of Philocthus hcemorrhous in Steph. 

 Illust. and Manual decidedly refer to B. guttula (in which 

 the sub-apical spots are sometimes suffused); and the expo- 

 nents of hcemorrhoils in the Stephensian Collection are B. 

 ohtusum and JB. gutttda, the type example (with the name 

 hcemorrhous attached) being a specimen of guttula in which 

 the sub-apical testaceous spot joins the light colour at the 

 apex, whereby the entire apex is more or less testaceous, and 

 this is very easily seen as the elytra are thrust open by the 

 pin on which the insect is pierced. 



Thomson, in his Skand. Col. i. 205, 27, gives 3Ianner- 

 heimii of Sahlberg and Dejean as synonymous with gilvipesy 

 Sturm, but with no explanation of his reasons for so doing ; 

 Schaura, however (loc. cit., 728, 52, note), says, that Sahl- 

 berg's insect must, from the description, " transverse thorax 

 with rotundate angles," be refei'red to licemorhoumy Steph. 

 (in which decision he is right, at least in separating it from 

 gilvipes, though in error about Stephens' Itcemorrhoils), and 

 that B. 31 a?iner heimii of Dejean, Spec. v. 167, 116, is a 

 synonym of gilvipes ; hence probably Thomson's confusion. 



