_ 
162 Mr. H. E. Andrewes’ Notes on Synonymy 
later on redescribed it (Bull. Mose. 1878, i, 9). His 
specimen came from Dacca, but the few examples I have 
seen all came from South India. 
41. Chlaenius (Carabus) pudieus, p. 193. (Sehestedt.) 
Type at Copenhagen. 
Chaudoir did not know the type and in his Mon. des 
Chléniens (p. 280) he unwisely assumed that it was identical 
with Motchulsky’s Callistowdes malachinus (Bull. Mose. 
1864, iv, 335), which is not the case. It is in fact the 
same species as Bates’ C. caeruleiceps (Ann. Mus. Civ. 
Gen. 1892, 320), a cotype of which I took with me for 
comparison. Fabricius’ type came from Bengal, Bates’ 
specimens from Karm Cheba: I have seen no other 
examples. 
42. Dischissus (Carabus) notulatus, p. 201. (Sehestedt.) 
Type at Copenhagen. 
We are indebted to Schaum for the identification of this 
species with Craspedophorus elegans Dej. (Spec. Gen. Ui, 
1826, 290). Chaudoir accepted Schaum’s statement, as 
appears both in his Revision of the genus Panagaeus 
(Bull. Mose. 1861, iv, 335) and his Mon. sur les Panagéides 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1878, 104). I took with me to 
Copenhagen a specimen already compared with Dejean’s 
type, only to find that the Fabrician species was quite 
a different one and, having a cleft fourth tarsal, did not 
even belong to the genus Craspedophorus. On my return 
I sent to Copenhagen three examples of the genus Dischissus, 
and as a result of Mr. Henriksen’s comparisons with the 
type and my own notes I feel little doubt that the species 
is identical with D. longicornis Schaum (Berl. Ent. Zeit. 
1863, 84). I have not, however, seen the type of this 
species, which is presumably in Berlin. 
As a result of the above, my former note on this species 
(1919, 163), to the effect that it should be included in 
 Craspedophorus, must be withdrawn. 
43. Pachytrachelus (Carabus) angulatus, p. 205. (Dal- 
dorff.) Type at Copenhagen (1919, 125). 
I have already pointed out that Fabricius described two 
quite different species under the same name of Carabus 
angulatus, this being the later one. I anticipated that it 
was the same thing as Dejean’s P. oblongus (Spec. Gen. v, 
1831, 813), a specimen of which, already compared with 
the type, I took with me for comparison. This proves 
to be the case, and the species should bear Dejean’s name. 
