288 



[May 



rubro-ctcpreis, laterihus viridi-cemis ; capite inter ociilos strigoso ; elytris 

 ut in O. cayennensi grosse creherrimeque punetatisjusco-cupreis, laterihus 

 viridi-ceneis et cupreis, macula alba unica marginali ; labro rufo ; pedibua 

 rujis, tibiis posticis pallidioribus, tarsis anticis Icete violaceis ; protTiorace 

 subtits nigro-cyaneOypectore abdomineque piceo-violaceis, hoc apice pallidiori. 



Long. 7 — 8 lin. ^ ? . 



This species belongs to the cayennensis group of the genus, — 

 having the thorax rectilinear and the surface of the elytra even, — but 

 difiers from all its allies by the fine ruddy-copper hue of its head and 

 thorax and the four red basal joints of the antennae. In the colour of 

 its legs it does not differ from O. erythropus, Chaud. ; the breast, how- 

 ever, and abdomen except towards its apex, are of a pitchy-violet colour, 

 instead of red, as in that species. 



From Tunmaguas and other places on the banks of the Huallaga, 

 Upper Amazons ; taken first by M. Barraquin, and afterwards by Mr. 

 E. Bartlett. It appears to represent in that district the 0. cayennensi* 

 of Guiana. 



Odontocheila catennensis. 



Cicindela cayennensis,Ygbb., Mantissa, 1, 187 (1787). 



id., Oliv., Ent., No. 33, p. 23, pi. 1, f. 2 (1790). 

 „ bipunctata, Eab., Ent. Syst., i, p. 174 (1792). 

 „ bipunctata, Dej., sp. gen., i, 22 (1825). 



„ bipunctata, Chaud., Bull. Mosc, 1860, p. 51 (separata) (1860). 

 „ bipunctata, Gemminger and Harold, Cat. Coleop., i, p. 30. 



I give the above synonomy to indicate the confusion that has crept 

 into the nomenclature of this group, owing to Eabricius having given 

 two names to one and the same species. He first described O. cayen- 

 nensis in his Mantissa, and afterwards re-named Olivier's figure of the 

 same species, or rather misquoted Olivier as describing a " Cicindela 

 bipunctata,'' this latter author having done nothing of the kind, but 

 described and figured a species as C. cayennensis of Fabricius, which 

 appears from the description really to be that species. Dejean de- 

 Bcribed two species under the two Eabrician names, giving the term 

 bipunctata to the one that seems really to be the species described by 

 the older author. The Baron Chaudoir has lately treated both as 

 varieties of one species, unfortunately retaining the erroneous name of 

 bipunctata for it. I think, however, the two Dejeanian species are 

 really distinct ; and, in this case, his cayennensis ought to receive a 

 new name. 



