_ 
170 Mr. H. E. Andrewes’ Notes on Synonymy 
Mr. Henriksen for comparison, and he informs me that it 
agrees exactly. He also adds, “ Wiedemann saw both 
specimens, as he determined all Westermann’s insects; the 
labels are written and arranged by Westermann, and the 
transposition of the labels must thus be due to him, as this 
part of his collection has not yet been altered.” 
19. Lomasa (Chlaenius) xanthaerus, p. 51. Bengal. 
Redescribed by Redtenbacher as Chlaenius huegeli (Reis. 
Novar. Zool. 1, 1867, Col. 9). I recently described a new 
genus for the species (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9), i, 1919, 
479). I have seen a number of specimens labelled “ India,” 
but the only exact localities I know are Calcutta and 
Karachi. 
20. Orthogonius (Plochionus) alternans, p. 52. Java 
(1919, 165). 
Redescribed by Dejean (Spec. Gen. i, 1825, 280). See also 
Brullé (Hist. Nat. des Ins. iv, 1834, a4 5, t. 8, f. 1), E. Des- 
marest (Voy. la Bonite 1841, 291, t. 2, £. 1), Schmidt-Goebel 
(Faun. Col. Birm. 1846, 60), and Chaudoir (Essai mono- 
graphique sur les Orthogoniens, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xiv, 
1871, 102). After seeing Wiedemann’s type, I am con- 
vinced that Macleay’s O. alternans (= macleayi Andr.) 
(Ann. jay. 1825, 27) is a distinct species. 
I have seen examples from Java, Sumatra, Burma, and 
Assam; according to KE. Desmarest, the species is also 
found in the Philippine Is. 
21. Chlaenius (Harpalus) leucops, p. 52. Bengal. 
Described by Chaudoir under the name of C. aeruginosus 
(Bull. Mose. 1856, in, 271): subsequently and quite 
correctly identified by its author with Wiedemann’s species. 
I have compared the same specimen with both types. 
Very widely spread over 8.E. Asia, including the Philip- 
pine Is. and Malay Archipelago, but apparently not common 
anywhere. 
22. Hypharpax (Harpalus) dentipes, p. 54. Java (1919, 158). 
I need not repeat here the synonymy and other particulars 
given in my former paper. 
23. Craspedophorus (Panagaeus) geniculatus, p. 56. 
Bengal. 
This species was unknown to Chaudoir, who thought it 
might be identical with C. hilaris Laf. (Mon. sur les 
Panagéides, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1878, 112). This is not 
the case, and, as no other description has appeared, I 
describe at the end the only other specimen I have seen 
ew 2 zs 
