﻿122 
  Mr. 
  H. 
  E. 
  Aiidrewes 
  on 
  the 
  

  

  local 
  forms. 
  Some 
  further 
  remarks 
  will 
  be 
  found 
  under 
  

   A. 
  orient 
  alls 
  Hope. 
  

  

  2. 
  Luperca 
  (Carabus) 
  laevigata 
  (Spec. 
  Ins. 
  i, 
  1781, 
  304). 
  

   The 
  type 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  was 
  not 
  at 
  first 
  in 
  evidence 
  among 
  

   the 
  other 
  Carabidae, 
  but, 
  knowing 
  that 
  it 
  should 
  be 
  in 
  

   the 
  Banks 
  Collection, 
  I 
  searched 
  through 
  some 
  supple- 
  

   mentary 
  drawers 
  and 
  found 
  it 
  without 
  much 
  difficulty. 
  

   The 
  species 
  was 
  figured 
  by 
  Olivier 
  (Ent. 
  iii, 
  1795, 
  36, 
  7, 
  t. 
  

   2, 
  f. 
  18) 
  under 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Scarites 
  laevigatus, 
  and 
  also 
  

   by 
  Lacordaire 
  (Gen. 
  Col. 
  1854, 
  Atl. 
  t. 
  6, 
  f. 
  1). 
  Dejean 
  

   (Spec. 
  Gen. 
  v, 
  1831, 
  474) 
  describes 
  it 
  under 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  

   Enceladus 
  laevigatus. 
  In 
  Chaudoir's 
  " 
  Monographic 
  des 
  

   Siagonides 
  " 
  (Bull. 
  Mosc. 
  1876, 
  i, 
  74), 
  it 
  is 
  redescribed 
  as 
  

   Holoscelis 
  laevigatus. 
  The 
  species 
  is 
  well 
  known, 
  and, 
  

   like 
  the 
  last, 
  confuied 
  to 
  India. 
  

  

  3. 
  Chlaenius 
  (Carabus) 
  cinctus 
  (Spec. 
  Ins. 
  i, 
  1781, 
  310). 
  

   So 
  far 
  as 
  my 
  knowledge 
  goes 
  this 
  species 
  has 
  never 
  yet 
  

   been 
  correctly 
  identified 
  by 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  numerous 
  writers 
  

   who 
  have 
  referred 
  to 
  it, 
  nor 
  does 
  Schaum 
  or 
  Motchulsky 
  

   throw 
  any 
  light 
  on 
  the 
  question. 
  

  

  The 
  specimens 
  taken 
  by 
  Mr. 
  George 
  Lewis 
  in 
  Ceylon, 
  

   and 
  determined 
  by 
  Bates 
  (Aim. 
  and 
  Mag. 
  of 
  Nat. 
  Hist. 
  

   5, 
  xvii, 
  1886, 
  74) 
  as 
  C. 
  cinctus 
  Fab., 
  agree 
  well 
  with 
  the 
  

   description 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  in 
  Chaudoir's 
  " 
  Monographic 
  

   des 
  Chleniens 
  " 
  (Aim. 
  Mus. 
  Civ. 
  Gen., 
  1876, 
  135), 
  so 
  that 
  

   these 
  two 
  authors 
  evidently 
  mistook 
  the 
  same 
  species 
  

   for 
  that 
  described 
  by 
  Fabricius. 
  Bates 
  puts 
  C. 
  pulcher 
  

   Nietn. 
  (Journ. 
  of 
  the 
  As. 
  Soc. 
  of 
  Beng. 
  v, 
  1856, 
  387) 
  in 
  

   synonymy 
  : 
  Chaudoir 
  refers 
  to 
  C. 
  pulcher 
  in 
  the 
  index 
  of 
  

   his 
  Monograph, 
  but 
  as 
  there 
  is 
  no 
  reference 
  to 
  the 
  species 
  

   on 
  the 
  page 
  indicated, 
  we 
  are 
  left 
  in 
  doubt 
  as 
  to 
  his 
  

   views. 
  I 
  think, 
  however, 
  this 
  identification 
  is 
  probably 
  

   correct, 
  and 
  in 
  that 
  case 
  Nietner's 
  name 
  would 
  stand 
  for 
  

   the 
  wrongly 
  identified 
  species. 
  Nietner's 
  short 
  description 
  

   leaves 
  some 
  uncertainty, 
  and 
  I 
  do 
  not 
  know 
  where 
  his 
  

   types 
  are 
  to 
  be 
  found. 
  

  

  Other 
  authors 
  before 
  Chaudoir's 
  time 
  redescribed 
  the 
  

   species, 
  notably 
  Herbst 
  (Fuessly's 
  Arch, 
  v, 
  1784, 
  135, 
  t. 
  

   29, 
  f. 
  7), 
  Olivier 
  (Ent. 
  iii, 
  1795, 
  35, 
  87, 
  t. 
  3, 
  f. 
  28)— 
  who 
  

   tells 
  us 
  that 
  the 
  species 
  is 
  found 
  on 
  the 
  Coromandel 
  Coast, 
  

   and 
  is 
  very 
  common 
  in 
  the 
  southern 
  departments 
  of 
  

   France^ 
  — 
  and 
  Dejean 
  (Spec. 
  Gen. 
  ii, 
  1826, 
  307). 
  As 
  there 
  

   are 
  several 
  closely 
  alUed 
  species, 
  it 
  is 
  impossible 
  to 
  identify 
  

   with 
  any 
  certainty 
  those 
  just 
  mentioned 
  until 
  the 
  type 
  

  

  