﻿208 
  Mr. 
  H. 
  E, 
  Andrewes 
  on 
  the 
  

  

  without 
  an 
  examination 
  of 
  foreign 
  collections, 
  it 
  is 
  im- 
  

   possible 
  to 
  decide 
  whether 
  certain 
  specimens 
  are 
  types 
  or 
  

   not, 
  

  

  1. 
  Clivina 
  agona 
  (Rev. 
  gen. 
  des 
  Clivinides, 
  Ann. 
  Soc. 
  

   Ent. 
  Belg. 
  x, 
  1867, 
  131). 
  After 
  the 
  description 
  we 
  read, 
  

   " 
  Rapporte 
  de 
  Siam 
  par 
  M. 
  de 
  Castelnau 
  1 
  ind." 
  The 
  

   label 
  is 
  marked 
  " 
  Siam 
  Castelnau 
  type," 
  and 
  there 
  seems 
  

   no 
  reason 
  to 
  doubt 
  that 
  this 
  specimen 
  is 
  actually 
  the 
  type 
  

   of 
  the 
  species, 
  though 
  I 
  find 
  nothing 
  in 
  Putzeys' 
  writings 
  

   to 
  indicate 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  in 
  the 
  Chevrolat 
  Collection. 
  The 
  

   species, 
  of 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  seen 
  no 
  other 
  example, 
  is 
  very 
  

   much 
  like 
  C. 
  castanea 
  (see 
  under 
  Westwood), 
  and 
  the 
  only 
  

   material 
  difference 
  I 
  can 
  detect 
  between 
  them 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  

   sculpture 
  of 
  the 
  thorax. 
  In 
  C. 
  castanea 
  the 
  surface 
  is 
  

   smooth 
  or 
  only 
  slightly 
  wrinkled 
  ; 
  in 
  C. 
  agoyia 
  the 
  transverse 
  

   wrinkling 
  is 
  very 
  marked. 
  The 
  longitudinal 
  wrinkles 
  are 
  

   not 
  so 
  apparent; 
  they 
  are 
  situated 
  on 
  each 
  side 
  of 
  the 
  

   median 
  furrow, 
  and 
  though 
  irregular 
  run 
  parallel 
  with 
  it 
  ; 
  

   they 
  may 
  sometimes 
  be 
  seen 
  indicated 
  in 
  C. 
  castanea. 
  

   The 
  finely 
  punctured 
  spaces 
  on 
  the 
  disk 
  I 
  have 
  never 
  seen 
  

   on 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  numerous 
  specimens 
  of 
  C. 
  castanea 
  I 
  have 
  

   examined. 
  It 
  is 
  possible 
  that 
  this 
  surface 
  structure 
  may 
  

   be 
  individual, 
  and 
  one 
  svould 
  like 
  to 
  see 
  more 
  Siamese 
  

   specimens. 
  Bates 
  thought 
  C. 
  agona 
  a 
  variety 
  only 
  of 
  

   C. 
  parryi 
  Putz. 
  (:= 
  C. 
  castanea 
  West.), 
  but 
  for 
  the 
  present 
  

   I 
  treat 
  it 
  as 
  distinct. 
  

  

  2. 
  Clivina 
  transversa 
  (Rev. 
  gen. 
  125). 
  This 
  is 
  also 
  a 
  

   specimen 
  taken 
  by 
  Castelnau 
  in 
  Siam, 
  but 
  it 
  does 
  not 
  

   claim 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  type. 
  Putzeys 
  says, 
  " 
  Siam 
  1 
  ind. 
  com- 
  

   munique 
  par 
  M. 
  Signoret." 
  I 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  learn 
  

   what 
  became 
  of 
  the 
  Signoret 
  Collection. 
  

  

  I 
  know 
  of 
  onlv 
  one 
  other 
  reference 
  to 
  the 
  species, 
  viz. 
  

   by 
  Bates 
  (Ann. 
  Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Fr. 
  1889, 
  262), 
  who 
  gives 
  Mytho 
  

   (Indo-China) 
  as 
  a 
  locality. 
  

  

  3. 
  Clivina 
  siamica 
  (Rev. 
  gen, 
  124). 
  Six 
  examples, 
  all 
  

   taken 
  by 
  Castelnau 
  in 
  Siam. 
  These 
  are 
  possibly 
  all 
  co- 
  

   types, 
  and 
  the 
  labelled 
  specimen 
  may 
  be 
  the 
  type, 
  though 
  

   this 
  is 
  not 
  indicated. 
  Putzeys 
  had 
  before 
  him 
  7 
  examples 
  

   taken 
  by 
  Castelnau 
  in 
  Siam. 
  Bates 
  (Ann. 
  Soc, 
  Ent. 
  Fr. 
  

   1889, 
  261) 
  identified 
  some 
  examples 
  from 
  Saigon 
  as 
  

   belonging 
  to 
  this 
  species. 
  

  

  I 
  think 
  C. 
  siamica 
  may 
  prove 
  to 
  be 
  identical 
  with 
  C. 
  

   lohata 
  Bon. 
  (Obs. 
  Ent. 
  ii," 
  1813, 
  481), 
  but 
  I 
  have 
  not 
  the 
  

   means 
  at 
  present 
  of 
  deciding 
  this 
  point. 
  

  

  