6 Major Parry’s Catalogue 
our collections, and most of these are illustrated by figures, 
Having lately returned from visiting the several collections at 
Leyden, Amsterdam, Halle, Berlin, Stettin and Paris, I have 
ascertained some interesting points with reference to the synonymy 
of certain species, and have acquired the knowledge of others 
previously unknown to me. I take this opportunity of thanking 
the gentlemen connected with the museums already alluded to for 
the great kindness and courtesy they respectively evinced towards 
me when visiting the collections placed under their charge. 
CuHIASOGNATHUS LATREILLEI Q, Solier. 
Reichit $, Thomson. 
imberbis, Dohrn, MS. 
I have no doubt as to the identity of the above (already re- 
ferred to in my Remarks on Mr. Thomson’s Catalogue of Lucanide, 
Tr. Ent. Soc. 3rd Series, vol. i. p. 444). Although my collection 
does not contain this species, | have been able to examine speci- 
mens of it in the collections of Count Mniszech and Herr Dohrn, 
at the Jardin des Plantes (Solier’s type) and the Leyden Museum ; 
all of which accord so entirely with the excellent figure in my 
possession by M. Migneaux, that I have now no hesitation in unit- 
ing them. 
Curasocnatuus Mniszecui ¢, Thomson. (Pl. X. fig. 3.) 
? Jousselinz, Reiche. 
Of the identity (although very probable) of these species I am 
not quite so certain. Single specimens of C. Mniszechii are in 
the collections of Mr. Thomson, Count Mniszech and M. Ger- 
main; the unique type specimen of C. Jousselinii is in the collec- 
tion of M. Jousselin at Versailles. According to a recent com- 
munication from M. Reiche, the two are to be considered as 
distinct. 
CanTHARoLeTHRUS Luxerit ¢, Buquet. (Pl. IX. fig. 6.) 
Whether this unique species is to be placed with the Chiasog- 
nathide or the Lucanide is problematical; both Mr. Thomson 
and Count Mniszech have considered it as belonging to the latter 
family ; the ¢ being as yet unknown, it is difficult to assign its 
true position. ‘The second species mentioned by Mr. Thomson 
in his Catalogue, C. Reichii ¢, was originally described by the 
Rev. F. W. Hope (Trans. Ent. Soc., vol. iv. p. 182, pl. xiii. fig. 3), 
and placed with Pholidotus; the two species may possibly here- 
after prove identical. 
