Royal Physical Society. 87 



pressed my opinion upon them, but by persevering investigations 

 I am now able to add something to what has been already said, 

 by way of completion. Male examples both of C. angustatus, 

 Fab., and C. cisteloides, Frohl. (castaneus, Sturm), occur with 

 slightly developed simple acuminate posterior trochanters, with 

 the difference however, that the trochanters in C. angustatus are 

 narrower and longer than in C. cisteloides, and their point is far 

 more acuminate. But there are moreover in both species males 

 with very different, strongly developed trochanters. Nevertheless 

 the principle of development is wholly different in the two spe- 

 cies. The highest step of the development of the trochanters 

 in the C. cisteloides, is that they are armed at the inner side with 

 a projecting tooth more or less curved, and in the angustatus, 

 that they are widened and lengthened into a gouge-chisel form ; 

 thus it is clear that a male of the angustatus can never come 

 before us with a tooth at the inner side of the trochanter, it 

 being impossible to form a transition -step to the gouge-chisel 

 form. 



" Note II. — I think I have found a second interesting sexual 

 distinction of the females of the C. angustatus, F., in the single 

 sharp acuminate posterior angles of the elytra. The specimens 

 of Erichson (to be found in the Royal collection of this place 

 (Berlin)) are represented as females of C. angustatus ; in the 

 same way a collection of females here agree perfectly with the 

 males, but the latter have rounded elytra. One female taken at 

 Cassels (alas, somewhat injured), which has been kindly sur- 

 rendered to me by Herr Richl, has likewise acuminate elytra. A 

 larger series of this generally rare species would be required to 

 allow us to decide without doubt whether perhaps one of the 

 species very similar to C. angustatus exists, of which the male 

 likewise may have acuminate elytra. However, I consider this 

 highly improbable. 



" Note III. — From the near affinity of this species with the fol- 

 lowing species more minutely described by Sturm (castaneus, St.), 

 is it surprising that I yet refer to this species the greatest 

 part of those placed by Erichson under the C. angustatus, 

 of the authors referred to by him, without subjecting to a 

 more particular examination the descriptions given by them, and 

 knowing whether or not they had the work of Sturm on Catops 

 before them while engaged on their descriptions ? Such an ex- 

 amination has been made as far as possible, and leads to the 

 result that those authors who entered upon a more detailed 

 description, such as Gyllenhal, Latreille, Spence, had mostly 

 both species before them, as Gyllenhal without doubt appears to 

 have had." 



