80 COLEOPTERA. 



tioned in my introductory remarks until the end of this 

 paper, in the hope of being able to say something definite 

 about it. It was taken (by sweeping) in Sherwood Forest 

 during the past summer, in some numbers, by the Rev. A. 

 Matthews ; who, being unable to lefer it satisfactorily to any 

 recorded European species, has sent a specimen to M. Bri- 

 sout, for comparison with E. alternatus, Fairm. M. Brisout 

 has not as yet pronounced any opinion upon the insect : but 

 I may observe that a type of E. alternatus in Mr. Janson's 

 Collection is certainly specifically distinct from it. If new, 

 as Mr. Matthews thinks it possibly may be, since it does not 

 perfectly agree with any description yet published, a further 

 account of it will appear from that gentleman's pen in an 

 early No. of the '^ Entomologist's Monthly Magazine." 



The insect, a most beautiful one, is figured on our fron- 

 tispiece. I am not in a position to express any decided 

 opinion upon the point; but certainly, from recollection, 

 think that jMr. Matthews' insect is specifically identical with 

 the single specimen from Killarney (not in my possession") 

 upon which I introduced E. affinis, Payk. ; with the descrip- 

 tion of which species Mr. Matthews' insect appears to me 

 to agree in every essential point, except in Kiesenwetter's 

 character of the greater thickness and the shortness of the 

 joints of the antennae (but not referring to the third joint 

 specially, the shortness of which is very evident in Mr. Mat- 

 thews' insect), as compared with E. Aurora. I am, how- 

 ever, as may be inferred from the remark on this point at 

 p. G8, not inclined to lay any stress upon this character. 



E. C. Rye, 



7, Park Field, Putney, S.W. 



\Wi Nov. 1867. 



