﻿Tyjjes 
  of 
  Oriental 
  Carabidae. 
  209 
  

  

  4. 
  Clivina 
  javanica 
  (Mon. 
  des 
  Clivina 
  et 
  genres 
  voisins, 
  

   Mem. 
  Liege, 
  ii, 
  1846, 
  592 
  (74) 
  ). 
  The 
  description 
  is 
  followed 
  

   by 
  the 
  note 
  "Java 
  1 
  ind. 
  Coll. 
  Chevrolat." 
  In 
  going 
  

   through 
  the 
  collection 
  I 
  was 
  unable 
  to 
  find 
  any 
  specimen 
  

   labelled 
  C. 
  javanica. 
  I 
  found, 
  however, 
  an 
  example 
  

   labelled 
  " 
  Clivina 
  indica 
  (D. 
  Bardel)," 
  which 
  has 
  nothing 
  

   to 
  do 
  with 
  C. 
  indica, 
  and 
  (except 
  that 
  the 
  lateral 
  groove 
  

   on 
  the 
  thorax 
  does 
  not 
  quite 
  reach 
  the 
  anterior 
  margin) 
  

   agrees 
  with 
  the 
  description 
  of 
  C. 
  javanica. 
  This 
  specimen 
  

   does 
  not 
  claim 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  type, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  possible 
  that 
  some 
  

   accidental 
  confusion 
  of 
  labels 
  has 
  occurred, 
  and 
  in 
  default 
  

   of 
  other 
  competitors 
  with 
  better 
  claims, 
  I 
  think 
  it 
  may 
  be 
  

   regarded 
  as 
  the 
  probable 
  type 
  of 
  the 
  species. 
  In 
  the 
  

   " 
  Revision 
  generale 
  " 
  (p. 
  124) 
  Putzeys 
  mentions 
  another 
  

   specimen 
  in 
  his 
  own 
  collection 
  from 
  the 
  same 
  locality, 
  

   and 
  Bouchard 
  (Arm. 
  Soc. 
  Ent. 
  Fr. 
  1903, 
  169) 
  also 
  records 
  

   the 
  species 
  from 
  Java. 
  

  

  5. 
  Clivina 
  ephippiata 
  (Mon. 
  602 
  (84) 
  ). 
  Putzeys 
  says, 
  

   " 
  Java 
  1 
  ind. 
  Coll. 
  Chevrolat," 
  but 
  I 
  actu-ally 
  find 
  two 
  

   specimens 
  designated 
  " 
  type," 
  one 
  labelled 
  " 
  Java 
  " 
  twice 
  

   over, 
  the 
  other 
  labelled 
  " 
  Java 
  " 
  on 
  one 
  ticket 
  and 
  " 
  Macas- 
  

   sar 
  " 
  on 
  another. 
  In 
  his 
  " 
  Postscriptum 
  ad 
  Cliv. 
  Mon." 
  

   (Mem. 
  Liege, 
  xviii, 
  1863, 
  29) 
  Putzeys 
  remarks, 
  " 
  J'en 
  ai 
  

   vu 
  un 
  individu 
  de 
  Macassar. 
  J'en 
  possede 
  deux 
  que 
  j'ai 
  

   re9us 
  de 
  M. 
  Stevens 
  comme 
  venant 
  des 
  lies 
  Celebes." 
  In 
  

   the 
  " 
  Revision 
  generale 
  " 
  (p. 
  185), 
  the 
  other 
  localities 
  have 
  

   disappeared, 
  and 
  we 
  are 
  confronted 
  with 
  " 
  lies 
  Celebes 
  " 
  

   only. 
  It 
  appears 
  certain 
  that 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  Oxford 
  

   specimens 
  is 
  the 
  type, 
  but 
  there 
  seems 
  no 
  longer 
  any 
  

   means 
  of 
  ascertaining 
  which 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  enjoys 
  that 
  

   distinction. 
  

  

  There 
  is 
  one 
  specimen 
  from 
  Java 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum, 
  

   and 
  I 
  have 
  one 
  in 
  my 
  own 
  collection, 
  received 
  from 
  Mr. 
  

   Sloane, 
  labelled 
  " 
  Sukabumi 
  " 
  (E. 
  Java). 
  

  

  6. 
  Clivina 
  lobata 
  (Bonelli, 
  Obs. 
  Ent. 
  ii, 
  1813, 
  481; 
  

   Dejean, 
  Spec. 
  Gen. 
  i, 
  1825, 
  414). 
  Though 
  this 
  species 
  was 
  

   not 
  described 
  by 
  Putzeys, 
  I 
  mention 
  it 
  here 
  because 
  he 
  

   makes 
  it 
  the 
  tvpe 
  of 
  a 
  considerable 
  group. 
  He 
  did 
  not 
  

   know 
  Bonelh's 
  type, 
  but, 
  for 
  reasons 
  given 
  in 
  the 
  " 
  Re- 
  

   vision 
  " 
  (p. 
  120), 
  he 
  considered 
  that 
  Dejean's 
  was 
  identical 
  

   with 
  it. 
  These 
  reasons 
  seem 
  to 
  me 
  inadequate, 
  but 
  mitil 
  

   BonelU's 
  type 
  (if 
  it 
  still 
  exists) 
  is 
  available 
  for 
  examination, 
  

   the 
  question 
  must 
  remain 
  open. 
  In 
  the 
  Chevrolat 
  Collec- 
  

   tion 
  there 
  are 
  two 
  examples, 
  one 
  from 
  Bengal, 
  the 
  other 
  

  

  TRANS. 
  ENT. 
  SOC. 
  LOND. 
  1919. 
  — 
  PARTS 
  I, 
  II. 
  (JULY) 
  P 
  

  

  