﻿164. 
  Mr. 
  H. 
  E. 
  Andrewes 
  on 
  the 
  

  

  distributed 
  and 
  much 
  described, 
  as 
  will 
  be 
  seen 
  from 
  the 
  

   following 
  synonymy 
  : 
  — 
  

  

  Dromius 
  tetraspilotus 
  Macl., 
  Ann. 
  Jav, 
  1825, 
  25. 
  

   Thyreopterus 
  tetrasemus 
  Dej., 
  Spec. 
  Gen. 
  v. 
  1831, 
  448. 
  

   Mochiherus 
  angulatus 
  Schm.-Geob., 
  Faun. 
  Col. 
  Birm. 
  

  

  1846, 
  76. 
  

   Panagaeus 
  retractus 
  Walk., 
  Ann. 
  and 
  Mag. 
  of 
  Nat. 
  Hist. 
  

  

  3, 
  ii, 
  1858, 
  203. 
  

   Cyrtopterus 
  quadrinotatus 
  Motch., 
  Bull. 
  Mosc. 
  1861, 
  i, 
  106. 
  

  

  It 
  is 
  spread 
  over 
  the 
  whole 
  of 
  the 
  Indo-Malay 
  region, 
  

   including 
  Indo-China, 
  and 
  extends 
  to 
  Christmas 
  Island 
  ; 
  

   I 
  have, 
  however, 
  seen 
  no 
  examples 
  from 
  China 
  or 
  Japan 
  in 
  

   the 
  north, 
  or 
  from 
  New 
  Guinea 
  or 
  Austraha 
  in 
  the 
  south. 
  

  

  34. 
  Colpodes 
  (Lamprias) 
  ruficeps. 
  The 
  species 
  belongs 
  

   to 
  Macleay's 
  own 
  genus 
  Colpodes, 
  a 
  circumstance 
  he 
  did 
  

   not 
  detect. 
  Eschscholtz 
  (Zool. 
  At), 
  ii, 
  1829, 
  6, 
  t. 
  8, 
  f. 
  3) 
  

   pro\'ided 
  for 
  it 
  a 
  new 
  genus, 
  which 
  he 
  named 
  Loxocrepis. 
  

   Brulle 
  (Audouin 
  and 
  Brulle's 
  Hist. 
  Nat. 
  Ins. 
  iv, 
  1834, 
  325, 
  

   t. 
  12, 
  f. 
  2) 
  adopted 
  Eschscholtz's 
  name, 
  but 
  applied 
  it 
  to 
  a 
  

   different 
  species, 
  viz. 
  Dicranoncus 
  amabilis 
  Chaud. 
  (Ann. 
  

   Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Fr. 
  1859, 
  350 
  (note) 
  and 
  359). 
  Bates 
  quite 
  

   misconceived 
  Macleay's 
  species, 
  and 
  followed 
  Brulle 
  : 
  the 
  

   various 
  references 
  to 
  Colpodes 
  ruficeps 
  Macl. 
  in 
  Bates' 
  works 
  

   (Trans. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  1883, 
  263; 
  Ann. 
  and 
  Mag. 
  of 
  Nat. 
  Hist. 
  

   5, 
  xvii, 
  1886, 
  147; 
  Ann. 
  Mus. 
  Civ. 
  Gen. 
  1892, 
  376) 
  must 
  

   all 
  be 
  read 
  as 
  Dicranoncus 
  amabilis 
  Chaud. 
  Bates 
  com- 
  

   mented 
  on 
  the 
  species 
  freely, 
  and 
  blamed 
  Chaudoir 
  — 
  quite 
  

   rightly 
  — 
  for 
  confusing 
  with 
  it 
  Schmidt-Goebel's 
  Euplynes 
  

   cyanipennis 
  (Faun. 
  Col. 
  Birm. 
  1846, 
  52). 
  Chaudoir, 
  how- 
  

   ever, 
  knew 
  Macleay's 
  species, 
  and 
  refers 
  to 
  it 
  correctly 
  

   both 
  in 
  his 
  " 
  Monographic 
  du 
  genre 
  Colpodes 
  " 
  (Ann. 
  Soc. 
  

   Ent. 
  Fr. 
  1859, 
  348), 
  and 
  in 
  his 
  subsequent 
  " 
  Revision 
  des 
  

   Colpodes 
  " 
  (Ann. 
  Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Fr. 
  1878, 
  376), 
  but 
  he 
  did 
  not 
  

   know 
  the 
  genus 
  Euplynes, 
  and 
  even 
  went 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  to 
  pro- 
  

   pose 
  the 
  new 
  name 
  of 
  schmidti 
  for 
  Schmidt-Goebel's 
  species 
  

   (Mon. 
  360). 
  Chaudoir 
  gives 
  a 
  full 
  description 
  in 
  his 
  Mono- 
  

   graph 
  (p. 
  348), 
  and 
  I 
  need 
  not 
  therefore 
  give 
  a 
  fresh 
  one. 
  

   Eschscholtz's 
  example 
  was 
  taken 
  at 
  Manilla. 
  Apart 
  from 
  

   the 
  type, 
  all 
  the 
  examples 
  I 
  have 
  seen 
  came 
  from 
  India 
  

   and 
  Ceylon, 
  and 
  Macleay 
  himself 
  remarks 
  that 
  the 
  species 
  

   appears 
  to 
  be 
  less 
  common 
  in 
  Java 
  than 
  in 
  India. 
  

  

  35. 
  Callida 
  (Lebia) 
  splendidula. 
  This 
  species 
  is 
  not 
  intro- 
  

  

  