﻿Types 
  of 
  Oriental 
  Carahidae. 
  125 
  

  

  doubt 
  in 
  my 
  mind 
  that 
  the 
  insect 
  described 
  by 
  Fabricius 
  

   was 
  a 
  PheropsojjJius, 
  and 
  in 
  going 
  through 
  the 
  supple- 
  

   mentary 
  drawers 
  again 
  I 
  discovered 
  a 
  specimen 
  of 
  that 
  

   genus 
  bearing 
  the 
  label 
  " 
  tripustulatus 
  " 
  — 
  no 
  doubt 
  the 
  

   type 
  specimen 
  from 
  which 
  the 
  description 
  was 
  drawn 
  up. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  Transactions 
  of 
  1901 
  Mr. 
  G. 
  J. 
  Arrow 
  reviewed 
  

   the 
  genus 
  Pheropsophus, 
  and 
  described 
  some 
  new 
  species. 
  

   He 
  also 
  had 
  the 
  opportui\ity 
  of 
  comparing 
  specimens 
  in 
  

   the 
  British 
  Museum 
  Collection 
  with 
  some 
  of 
  Chaudoir's 
  

   types. 
  A 
  specimen 
  labelled 
  " 
  India 
  (Bowring 
  Coll.) 
  " 
  was 
  

   found 
  by 
  Mr, 
  Arrow, 
  after 
  comparison 
  with 
  the 
  type, 
  to 
  

   be 
  identical 
  with 
  Chaudoir's 
  P. 
  amoenus 
  (Bull. 
  Mosc. 
  

   1850, 
  i, 
  78). 
  This 
  specimen 
  agrees 
  well 
  with 
  tripushdatus, 
  

   which 
  name 
  accordingly 
  replaces 
  Chaudoir's. 
  The 
  type 
  

   came 
  from 
  Siam 
  ; 
  Chaudoir 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  the 
  locahty 
  

   of 
  his 
  P. 
  amoenus. 
  I 
  have 
  not 
  seen 
  any 
  other 
  specimens. 
  

  

  5. 
  Craspedophorus 
  (Carabus) 
  angulatus. 
  I 
  suppose 
  few 
  

   species 
  have 
  given 
  rise 
  to 
  such 
  a 
  Comedy 
  of 
  Errors 
  as 
  

   this 
  one. 
  The 
  specimen 
  in 
  the 
  Banks 
  Collection 
  was 
  

   originally 
  described 
  by 
  Fabricius 
  in 
  Spec. 
  Ins. 
  i, 
  1781, 
  

   302, 
  and 
  the 
  description 
  reappeared 
  in 
  Mant. 
  Ins. 
  i, 
  1787, 
  

   197, 
  and 
  Ent. 
  Syst. 
  i, 
  1792, 
  148. 
  In 
  Syst. 
  Eleuth. 
  i, 
  

   1801, 
  203, 
  the 
  name 
  reappears, 
  but 
  the 
  insect 
  is 
  a 
  totally 
  

   different 
  one. 
  I 
  am 
  not 
  sure 
  that 
  it 
  has 
  been 
  identified 
  

   with 
  certainty, 
  but 
  there 
  seems 
  little 
  doubt 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  the 
  

   same 
  thing 
  as 
  Dej 
  can's 
  PachytracJielus 
  {Agonoderus) 
  oblongus 
  

   (Spec. 
  Gen. 
  v, 
  1831, 
  813). 
  

  

  To 
  add 
  to 
  the 
  confusion 
  another 
  example 
  of 
  angulatus 
  

   (1781) 
  served 
  as 
  type 
  for 
  Pimelia 
  fasciata 
  (Spec. 
  Ins. 
  i, 
  

   1781, 
  318; 
  Mant. 
  Ins. 
  i, 
  1787, 
  209; 
  Ent. 
  Syst. 
  i, 
  1792, 
  

   104). 
  I 
  have 
  not 
  had 
  the 
  opportunity 
  of 
  seeing 
  the 
  type, 
  

   but 
  I 
  see 
  no 
  reason 
  to 
  doubt 
  the 
  identity 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  species. 
  

   (See 
  further 
  remarks 
  under 
  the 
  next 
  species 
  Crasjjedophorus 
  

   rejlexus.) 
  

  

  Vigors 
  next 
  described 
  the 
  species 
  (Zool. 
  Journ. 
  i, 
  1824, 
  

   537, 
  t. 
  20, 
  f. 
  1) 
  under 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Panagaeus 
  iomentosus, 
  

   and 
  this 
  name 
  was 
  subsequently 
  adopted 
  by 
  Dejean 
  (Spec. 
  

   Gen. 
  ii, 
  1826, 
  284, 
  and 
  v, 
  1831, 
  598) 
  and 
  Laferte 
  (Ann. 
  

   Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Fr. 
  1851, 
  220). 
  The 
  type 
  specimen 
  described 
  

   by 
  Vigors 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum 
  collection. 
  

  

  It 
  was 
  left 
  to 
  Chaudoir, 
  however, 
  to 
  render 
  confusion 
  

   worse 
  confounded. 
  He 
  first 
  of 
  all 
  described 
  the 
  genus 
  

   Epicosmus 
  (Bull. 
  Mosc. 
  1846, 
  iv, 
  512 
  (note) 
  ) 
  expressly 
  for 
  

   this 
  species. 
  In 
  his 
  " 
  Revision 
  des 
  especes 
  qui 
  rentrent 
  

  

  