i8fi9.i ' 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 Wey bridge, 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 
meadovp-, 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. E.] 
Notes upon Oemminger and Von Earold^s " Catalogus Coleopterorum,^' Tom ii. — 
There are several points in and connected with this work which deserve the special 
attention of British Entomologists. Notably, it is worthy of remark that Baron 
Von Harold, who, during his visit to this country, accurately examined (amongst 
other things) the Stephen sian Coprophaga, appears to have satisfied himself of the 
correctness of the view of the Kii-byan 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 connections 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 forward 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-novel ties J and to have thereby made their useful work of still 
greater use. 
The localities given for the different species are at fii'st 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 occlir, seems to me the 
more preferable of the two. 
Some grammatical corrections, fearlessly introduced (e. g., K}vantus,llyohius, — 
for Uantus, Ilybius, — &c.) , will delight many and doubtless displease others ; 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). 
