and on some Types of Oriental Carabidae. 161 
59) were at fault here. Motchulsky proposed a new genus 
Egadroma for the species. I have already commented 
on it and have only to add that, having now seen the 
types both of this species and 5-pustulatus Wied., my 
impression that these were only different forms of one 
species 1s confirmed. In the Fabrician type the interval 
between the two yellow apical spots is itself faintly yellow. 
36. Ophionea (Cicindela) eyanocephala, p. 60. (Daldorff.) 
Type at Copenhagen. 
A very well-known and widely-spread Eastern species, 
which seems to have been previously described by Thun- 
berg (Nov. Ins. Spec. part 3, 1784, 68, f. 81). It has 
been redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 173), 
Brullé (Hist.-Nat. des Ins. iv, 1834, 139, t. 4, f. 3), and 
Schmidt-Goebel (Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 20). The figure 
given by Lacordaire (Gen. des Col. Atl. t. 3, f. 2) does 
not represent this species, as alleged, but O. nigrofasciata 
Schm.-Goeb. 
(6) SystemMA ELEUTHERATORUM, 1 (1801). 
37. Chlaenius (Carabus) quadricolor, p. 180. (Lund-Dal- 
dorfi.) Type at Copenhagen (1919, 139). 
The specimen from which Fabricius drew up his descrip- 
tion agrees with the traditional C. quadricolor Oliv.: Mr. 
Henriksen has kindly compared with it an example which 
I sent him. 
38. Cataseopus (Carabus) elegans, p. 184. (Daldorff.) 
Type at Copenhagen (1919, 141 and 182). 
Schaum was wrong in supposing the species identical 
with C. smaragdulus Dej. Weber (Obs. Ent. 1801, 45) 
had described the species a few months, apparently, before 
Fabricius’ volume appeared. I need only add to my 
previous notes that Chaudoir has given a very detailed 
description (Bull. Mosc. 1850, ii, 354). 
39. Callida (Carabus) splendidula, p. 184. (Sehestedt.) 
(1919, 165), 
The specimen at Copenhagen was taken by Daldorff, 
and may be the type, but for some reason not now ascer- 
tainable it is not so marked; there is no example at Kiel. 
40. Strigia (Carabus) stigma, p. 192. (Daldorff.) Type 
at Copenhagen. 
It was a long time before this species was put into its 
present genus, and Motchulsky proposed for it (Kt. Ent. 
1855, 45) the new genus Selenidia. Chaudoir saw that it 
was a true Strigia (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 1872, 140), and 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1921.—PaRTS I, If. (OCT.) M 
