Royal Physical Society. 81 



The only works remaining to be noticed are M. Kraatz's revi- 

 sion of the genus published in parts in the ' Stettin Ent. Zeitung '■ 

 in 1852, and the ' Faune Entomologique Francaise' now in 

 course of publication by MM. Fairmaire and Laboulbene. 

 Although the latter work is subsequent in date, I shall notice it 

 first; partly because none of M. Kraatz's new species are to be 

 found in it, and partly because M. Kraatz's revision contains a 

 full summary of all the European species hitherto described, and 

 is therefore well suited for closing this part of my paper. 



The authors of the ' Faune Ent. Franc. ' adopt the name Cho- 

 leva, Lat., in deference to priority, instead of Catops. They do not 

 introduce any new species. They adopt the four subdivisions 

 laid down by Erichson, and in addition attempt to break up the 

 second subdivision into smaller sections. These subdivisions are — 



1. "Posterior angles of corselet obtuse" in which they place 

 C. picipes, grandicollis, and alpina. 



2. " Posterior angles of corselet right-angled, more or less 

 pointed" containing C.fusca, morio, nigrita, quadraticollis, tristis, 

 chrysomeloides, rotundicollis, and fumata. 



3 . " Posterior angles of corselet pointed, a little produced behind," 

 which contains umbrina, nigricans, and scitula. 



These divisions appear to me to group the species in too un- 

 natural a manner to be of service even as an artificial mode of 

 arrangement in facilitating the determination of species. For 

 instance, picipes in the first section has most affinity with nigri- 

 cans in the third, grandicollis in the first with tristis in the 

 second (indeed I propose to show presently that they are the 

 same species) ; and alpina in the first has very close affinity with 

 fumata in the second, and scitula in the third should join them. 

 Umbrina undoubtedly ought to go beside velox, which is not in 

 this section at all ;— Erichson' s character of the dilatation of the 

 first joint of the middle tarsi in the males separating them. 

 Their affinity otherwise however is so great, that I think that 

 character must be disregarded to allow these species to take their 

 proper place beside each other. 



I now come to Kraatz's revision, in favour of which I cannot 

 speak too highly. I differ from him in opinion in one or two 

 instances, but wherever I do so I must beg the reader to take 

 my opinion with caution and examine it with suspicion, as the 

 well-known acumen and accuracy of that gentleman stamp his 

 views with a primd-facie authenticity which only very strong 

 evidence can overthrow. 



He divides the genus into five sections, the first three and the 

 last of which are Erichson's ; the fourth is new. 



In the first section he has spadiceus, a new species which he 



