and on some Types of Oriental Carabidae. 165 
Redeseribed by Chaudoir in his Mon. des Brachynides 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1876, 101). Confined apparently 
to India and Ceylon, and not very common. 
WIEDEMANN. 
All the types of Wiedemann were in the Westermann 
collection and are at Copenhagen; more than half of them 
have been correctly identified, so that on these my notes 
will be brief. All the specimens came either from Bengal 
or from Java. The descriptions, which are in German, 
were drawn up between 1819 and 1824, and, considering 
when they were written, they are reasonably good: as a 
rule I have found it possible to recognise the species without 
any great difficulty. I give a list below, taking the species 
—as in the case of the Fabrician types—in chronological 
order. There are but few species to redescribe, partly 
because the original descriptions are sufficiently accurate, 
but much more because Westermann sent so many examples 
to Dejean, who redescribed them in his well-known Species 
Général des Coléoptéres. 
(1) ZootociscHES Macazin, i, 3 (1819). 
1. Cataseopus (Carabus) facialis, p. 165. Bengal (1919, 
130, 132, 141, and 202). 
Redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 329), Brullé 
(Hist. Nat. des Ins. iv, 1834, 232), and Chaudoir (Bull. 
Mose. 1850, 11, 352). A very common species throughout 
S.E. Asia. 
2. Chiaenius (Carabus) apiealis, p. 166. Probably Bengal, 
though in this instance no locality is given. 
Redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. ii, 1826, 324) and 
Chaudoir (Mon. des Chléniens, p. 89). Confined to Northern 
India and Burma. Bouchard (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1903, 
171) mentions Java as a locality, but probably he had 
before him C. apicalis Macl. (= mutatus Mun. Cat.). 
3. Orthogonius (Carabus) duplicatus, p. 166. Java. 
This species has been misunderstood by all the authors 
who have dealt with it, excepting only Dejean (Spec. Gen. 
i, 1825, 279), and his specimen came direct from Wester- 
mann. Wiedemann’s description is certainly in this case 
misleading, which no doubt accounts for the existing 
confusion. After Dejean, Schmidt-Goebel next considered 
the species, and decided on making a new genus Apsectra 
(Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 61) for the insect which he errone- 
ously identified with it. Just before (p. 57) he had described 
) 
