NEW ZEALAND COLEOPTERA. 297 
RESULTS OF AN EXAMINATION OF SOME OF WHITE'S 
TYPES OF NEW ZEALAND COLEOPTERA CON- 
TAINED IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM COLLECTION 
AT LONDON, 
>—— 
BY DR. D. SHARP. 
2 a 
It is well known to entomologists that the descriptions of insects 
by Adam White, contained in ‘“‘ The Zoology of the Voyage of 
H.M.S. Erebus and Terror,” Part XI., April, 1846, are so deficient 
and inaccurate that many of them cannot be identified. Shortly 
before his decease, Adam White himself spoke to me of this, and 
said that it was not his own fault that such is the case, but that he 
was instructed by his superiors to interrupt work he was doing on 
Crustacea to draw up these descriptions, and that no sufficient 
time was allowed him for the accomplishment of so difficult a task. 
It is no part of my duty to ascertain whose fault it was that so 
unscientific a work was published ‘by authority of the Lords 
Commissioners of the Admiralty;” but I have thought it right to 
record Mr. White’s disavowal of responsibility inthe matter, Owing 
to the deficient nature of the work the descriptions, where not ac- 
companied by figures, can in many cases not even be guessed at, 
and the only way to recognise them is to examine the individuals 
Mr. White described. These were caretully labelled at the time by 
White himself, the label being placed on the pin transfixiug the in- 
sect, and many of them are preserved in the collection of the British 
Museum at London. As no thorough examination of these “ type” 
specimens has ever been made, I recently visited London for the 
purpose of working them out, and these notes are the result. I 
have, however, only been able to accomplish the work in an incom- 
plete manner; it is but littlegoodtrusting tomemory in such matters, 
and it is necessary, in order that the elucidations should be satis- 
factory, to take specimens for comparison which may be certified 
as agreeing with the types. This, for various reasons which I need 
not mention in detail, I was able to do only partially. Moreover, 
the type specimens are, in some cases, dirty, and so badly mounted 
that no satisfactory examination can be made until the Museum 
authorities cause them to be put into proper condition. Hence 
there is still much to do to clear up White’s work ; but I hope the 
following notes will contribute a little to the desirable result. I 
shall be happy at a future time, if desired by New Zealand natu- 
ralists to do so, to undertake a more complete examination ot these 
type specimens of Coleoptera. 
Anchomenus elevatus, White.—Thisis the same as A. nove zealandia, 
Fairm., and the name must be relegated tosynonymy. There isan 
example of Fairmaire’s species ticketed with a label identitying the 
French author’s insect, by White himself; it stands side by side 
with White’s own type of A. elevatus, and it is probable that, the 
description of Fairmaire’s insect having been published in the in- 
terva] between the writing and publication of White’s description 
of A. elevatus, White intended to suppress his own species, but 
omitted to carry out his intention. 4. nove zealandie is closely 
allied to the Auckland insect called A. elevatus, by Bates, but is 
