TenebrionidjB in the Banks Collection. 487 



25. Alohates morio, Gen. Ins. 177G, p. 241 [Ilelops). N. 

 America. 



The collection from wliicli tlie type is taken is not stated, 

 but two specimens are placed over tliis name in the Banks 

 Collection. One of these is a Taraxides, and need not 

 be further considered. The other is a form of Alohates 

 ba7-ha'a, Knoch, and, what is very unusual, bears a 

 locality-label, "Antigua." In this connection it may be 

 noted that while both the Gen. Ins. (1776) and Ent. Syst. i. 

 (1792) state " habitat in America boreali," in Syst. El. i. 

 (1801) this is altered to " in Amerlcje meridionalis Insulis." 

 Tiiongli there is an clement of doubt as to the Banksian 

 insect being the type of flelops morio, F., there is every 

 probability that this is the case, or, at any rate, that it is 

 conspecitic, and this identification is supported by the descrip- 

 tion, which does not agree with the Zophohas morio of the 

 Catalogues. 



What, then, is Zophohas morio of our collections? The 

 name is synonymized in the Catalogues with nigritus, 01. 

 (Ent. iii. 1795, 57, p. 5, pi. ii. fig. 26), but once more 

 Olivier is referring to a species of Fabricius, He/ops nigrita, F., 

 Spec. Ins, i. p. 325. Fabricius repeats the description of this 

 insect several times, as follows : — 



1. T(ene&/7oa<ra<</5, Syst. Ent, 1775, p. 25(). (S.America.) 



2. JJcloj>s nigi-ifa, Gen. Ins. 1776, p. 241. (S. America.) 



Synonymized with no. 1. 



3. ,, „ Spec. Ins. i. 1781, p. 325. (S. Ame- 



rica,) Synonymiz'd with no. 1. 



4. „ „ Mant. Ins. 1787, p, 214. (No details.) 



5. „ „ Ent. Syst. i. 1792, p. 120, (S. Ame- 



rica.) Copy of no. 3. 

 G. „ „ Sy.st. El. i. 1801, p. KiO, (Tranque- 

 bar.J Synonynii;4ed with no. 5. 



This last description, though expressly .«ynonymous with 

 that of the Ent. Syst. i. 1792, evidently refers to a different 

 insect, for, in addition to the liew locality, we have the 

 further details, " tibiae anticai in allero .sexu ante apicem 

 sinuata.'," not before mentioned. This must be the specimen 

 seen by Gebien at Copenhagen and referred to Pseudoh/aps, 

 but it is clearly not the type of Ttnehiio atratus (1775),= 

 Helops n'ujrita, F. (1776), and for it the name P. dtsprir, 

 llerbst (1797), will therefore stand. 



The other live references apj)arently do n-late to the species 



