and on some Types of Oriental Carabidae. 167 
all over S.E. Asia. . Bates’ C. culminatus (Trans. Ent. Soc. 
Lond. 1873, 251) is not more than a local race. 
7. Chiaenius rufithorax, p. 112. Bengal. 
Also redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. ii, 1826, 322), 
and by Chaudoir (Mon. 259). I am indebted to M. René 
Oberthiir for the only other example I know of this species, 
which came from Assam (Noa Dehing Valley), and which I 
compared with the type. . 
8. Systolocranius (Oodes) linea, p. 113. Bengal. 
Described by Dejean (Spec. Gen. ii, 1826, 376) as Oodes 
grandis : 1 have compared the same specimen with both 
types. Chaudoir redescribed it in his Mon. des Oodides 
(Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1882, 331). Confined to North and 
Central India. 
9. Simous (Oodes) nigriceps, p. 114. Bengal. 
Described by Dejean as Oodes pulcher (Spec. Gen. i, 1826, 
375). Here again I was able to compare the same speci- 
men with both types. See also Chaudoir (Mon. 375). 
Confined to North India, but there is a specimen labelled 
“ Pegu”’ in the-Indian Museum apparently belonging to 
this species. 
10. Chlaenius (Carabus) xanthospilus, p. 115. Bengal. 
Redescribed by Nietner as C. quinquemaculatus (Journ. 
As. Soc. Beng. v, 1856, 386; id. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 
xix, 1857, 242). See also Chaudoir (Mon. des Chléniens, 
285). The species seems to be fairly common throughout 
continental §.H.Asia. 
11. Brachynus longipalpis, p. 118. Bengal. 
Redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 314), and by 
Chaudoir in his Mon. des Brachynides (Ann. Soc. Ent. 
Belg. 1876, 87). The specimens I have seen all came from 
Bengal or the Himalayas, except some in the Oxford 
University Museum (Hope Dept.) labelled “ Madras ”’— 
probably in error. 
(3) ZooLogiscHEes MAGAZIN, i, 1 (1823). 
12. Distichus (Searites) parvus, p. 37. Bengal. 
Chaudoir, though with some doubt, identified this species 
with his Scarites opacus (Mon. des Scaritides, Ann. Soc. 
Ent. Belg. 1880, 103), and the description rather lends itself 
to this interpretation. It is in fact identical with Chau- 
doir’s Distichus lucidulus (1. c. p. 57), and his name must 
give place to Wiedemann’s. Mr. Henriksen has kindly 
compared with the type a specimen which I had already 
compared with Chaudoir’s type. 
; 
Ban, 
eT uty f 
