[m.\ 



247 



Norfolk specimen of hirticollis above-mentioned, kindly sent for examination by Mr. 



Bold, I noticed that the joints of the antennae are comparatively longer and thinner 

 than in fimetarius ; and Dr. Sharp, who subsequently sent me also a fen hirticollis, 

 remarks the same character. He has also taken hirticollis at Weybridge, in moss 

 on the banks of a large pool. All my former so-called " hirticollis " are fimetarius. 

 The majority came from Suffolk, but the insect occurs at Putney, in an open 

 meadow, in vegetable matter, far from any hot-bed. I suspect that the true 

 hirticollis will be found to be rare in our collections. Denny has the right species. 

 — E. C. R.] 



Notes upon Oemminger and Von Harold's " Catalogus Coleopterorum,^' Tom ii. — 

 There are several points in and connected with this work which deserve the special 

 1 attention of British Entomologists. Notably, it is worthy of remark that Baron 

 I Von Harold, who, during his visit to this country, accurately examined (amongst 

 1 other things) the Stephensian Coprophaga, appears to have satisfied himself of the 

 I correctness of the view of the Kirbyan and Stephensian species taken by Mr. 

 Waterhouse, in his " Catalogue." Accordingly, we find the British names, so 

 well known to us, at last recognised to the fullest extent in the most comprehenive 

 Continental Catalogue that has ever been published. From internal evidence, 

 however, it is tolerably clear that, in some of the groups comprised in the volume 

 now under notice, Mr. Waterhouse' s Catalogue has been adopted without reference 

 to corrections from time to time made in many of the species contained in that 

 work subsequent to its publication ; and certain supposed species, passed over in 

 silence by Mr. Waterhouse, are again brought foi-ward as good. This is, perhaps, 

 somewhat to be regretted, in spite of the authors' evident intention to give a place 

 to every species that is either recognized or has not clearly been accounted for ; 

 inasmuch as a little additional trouble (and very much trouble has clearly been 

 taken) would probably have enabled the authors to have effectually disposed of 

 these pseudo-novelties, and to have thereby made their useful work of still 

 greater use. 



The localities given for the different species are at first sight very puzzling, 

 purely English authors appearing to have described continental species, and con* 

 tinental writers, who never mention English insects, having " Anglia " after their 

 references. The authors' scheme seems to be to give after the name of a species 

 and its synonyms the widest geographical points of the recorded localities for that 

 species, in many cases irrespective of the prima-facie deductions from the names 

 of the authors quoted, except in the case of recognized varieties, when the country 

 is noted from which each such instance is recorded by the author given. The 

 method adopted by De Marseul, attributing to each species, synonym or variety, 

 the country in which it is stated by the author quoted to occuf, seems to me the 

 more preferable of the two. 



Some grammatical corrections, fearlessly introduced (e. g., Rhantus, IlyohiuSi — 

 for Rantus, IVyhius, — &c.), will delight many and doubtless displease others j and 

 the addition of their derivations to the generic names can hardly fail to correct 

 certain prevalent abuses (e, g., Cercyon, a proper name, should not have neuter but 

 masculine termination to its species ; — a correction noted also recently in our 

 columns by Mr. Dunning). 



