Coleoi^tera from Ceylon. 147 



rior lobe in the four hinder feet the longer; the middle tarsi 

 are grooved on each side, the hind tarsi on the outer side only ; 

 beneath, all four have a scanty, stiff, and short pubescence. 

 The thorax is relatively long and very siniihir in outline to 

 that of the New-Zealand C. cardiophorus, but the lateral 

 margins are more reflexed, especially near the hind angles, 

 than they are in that species, and the surface is smooth and 

 glossy. The lateral margins of the elongate-oval convex 

 elytra are also, especially in the middle, explanate-reflexed, the 

 junction at the shoulder with the strongly curved and short 

 basal margin forms an acute angle ; the apex of the elytra 

 is very obliquely sinuate- truncate, and each elytron tapers to 

 a short point near the suture ; all the strife are equally strongly 

 impressed. 



One example only. 



Colpodes amoeiiuSj Chaudoir. 



Colpodes amoenus, Chaudoir, Anu. Soc. Eiit. Fr. 1859, p. 326, = C. 

 splendens, Mora\Yitz, Bull. Ac. Petrop. v. 1863, p. 324. 



Dikoya. 



This fine species has a wide distribution. I have examined 

 examples from N.W. India, Java, and Japan. 



Colpodes lampriodes. 

 C. rujitipiti (Macleay) similis, sed difFert pedibus rufo-testaceis, 



immaculatis, ehtrisque margine apicali oblique liexuoso, apiid 



siituram solum spiuoso. 

 Long. 8 millim. 



Hadley and Dikoya ; under garden refuse. 



Judging from the few words of description this appears 

 to be the species erroneously referred by Chaudoir to the 

 Eiq)lynes Dohrni of Nietner, which is similar in shape and 

 colouis, but generically different in the fourth tarsal joints 

 having two long equal lobes, and is unmistakably described by 

 Nietner. Chaudoir had examined a " type provenant de 

 Nietner ;" it appears therefore that the original describer of 

 the species confounded the similarly coloured Colpodes with 

 his Euplynes. Chaudoir liimself had apparently never seen a 

 EuplyneSj as he referred Schmidt-Gobel's Euplynes cyani" 

 pennis in both his monographs (1859 and 1879) to Colpodes 

 rvficeps^ Macl. With regard to Macleay's species, I think 

 tliat Chaudoir also made a mistake, but this arose from Mac- 

 leay's unsatisfactory description. C rujiceps appears to be 

 peculiar to Java and Sumatra*, and to differ from the nume- 



* Au example taken by Dr. Beccari on Mount Singalang was kindly 

 communicated to me by Dr. Gestro of the Museo Civico of Genoa, toge- 

 ther with a specimen of (.'. s^narat/dinipennis (Ohaud.) from the same 

 locality. 



