1875.] 375 [Sprague. 



anticipated somewhat of a task, but it has far exceeded my worst 

 anticipations. One can have no conception who has not tried to 

 make a species fit some old description, of the quizzing, surmisings 

 and doubtings which come before him. He must also take into con- 

 sideration the queries of others, and then strike a balance which shall 

 convince all. 



When Dr. LeConte's list of Coleoptera was published, over one- 

 fourth of Randall's species were doubtful or unknown. There now 

 remain three doubtful and seven unknown. The following are the 

 special changes from LeConte's list, and some that were marked as- 

 doubtful in the Melsheimer Catalogue, where all the species were 

 put down without regard to their identity. 



Clivina elongata Rand., was changed by Dr. LeConte, sup- 

 posing the name to have been previously used. It now appears that 

 Chaudoir's name elongata was subsequent (1845) to Randall's, there- 

 fore the original name must be substituted. 



Patrobus rugicollis Rand., by a typographical error was pub- 

 lished angicollis. 



[This species is found rarely on Mt. Washington, in the upper part 

 of the timbered region of the mountain, e. p. a.] 



Hydrochus subcupreus Rand., was for some reason not put 

 in LeConte's list, and was until now unknown, but a careful exam- 

 ination of Dr. Harris's cabinet has revealed a specimen (No. 1382) 

 which is, without doubt, the true subcupreus. It was afterwards 

 described by Dr. Melsheimer as H. rwfipes, which must now be con- 

 sidered as only a synonym. 



[If this is the same as H. rnfipes Mels., which is very probable, it 

 is not uncommon in this vicinity. The description will apply to sev- 

 eral species, and is too indefinite to base any opinion on. e. p. a.] 



Nitidula a vara Rand., under the genus Eupara of LeConte r s 

 list, still remains unknown. 



[A specimen in the Harris cabinet, No. 1515, has been determined 

 by Mr. Sprague as belonging to this species, but it does not entirely 

 agree with the description, and owing to my not having had an oppor- 

 tunity to consult the Harris catalogue, I am unable to tell on what 

 grounds Sprague has decided it to be Randall's species. The speci- 

 men in question differs from E. infuscata Makl., by being a little 

 larger and more elongate; the base of the thorax is nearly straight,, 

 and it, as well as the elytra, is more coarsely punctured, e. p. a. J 



