250 [March, 
Wat. Cat, sjn.), though with a query. Choleva grandicolUs, &c., of Murray, 
erroneously attributed as varieties to chrysomeloides ; most likely through a 
misunderstanding of the remarks of that author, who says there are forms 
of chrysomeloides corresponding with the type as he (erroneously) considers 
grandicolUs, &c., to correspond with tristis. C. Kirhyi (rotundicollis) is again sunk 
as a var. o{ tristis. C.frater, Newman, Ent. Mag., 1, 1853, 507 (not in Wat. Cat.), 
is given as a good species. This, and 0. soror and miiifer of Newman, 1. c, are 
only incidentally mentioned in Murray's introductory remarks, wherein he states 
that he has not seen types of them, but that Mr. Little had specimens of soror and 
nubifer, named by Stephens, which were respectively to be referred to 0. nigricans 
and C. velox. Apparently in accordance with this inconclusive identification, 
C. soror and nuhifer are here placed as synonyms of the latter two species. C. frater, 
from the hopeless description, would seem possibly to be either small nigricans or 
coracinus. It is likened by its describer to C. fornicatus, — a name which I cannot 
find in Murray or Wat. Cat., but which, I presume, signifies C. nigricans, Spence. 
All three of Mr. Newman's species are stated to have been taken at HaHfax, and 
to be in the Cabinet of Mr. Davis. 
Anisotoma vittata, Curtis, Ann. Nat. Hist., v, 1840, 276, not being in syn. of 
Wat. Cat., is given as a good British species. I presume it is A. litura, Steph. 
Colenis latifrons, Curtis, 1. c, also given as a good species, is C. dentipes, teste Wat. 
Cat. Liodes axillaris, Steph., is stated to be a variety of L. castaneus (an insect 
not known to occur in Britain until late years), but is <? humeralis. Agathidium 
convexum, Sharp, is placed as a synonym of glolosum, Muls. et Eey. Clamhus 
coccinelloides and nitidus, Steph., 111. Brit. Ent., ii and v, not in syn. of Wat. Cat., 
are given as good species ; and Ptilium minutum, Steph., 1. c. iii, 61, is in the 
same rank. 
Finding so many note-worthy subjects in this volume, I propose to look 
through the first vol. in like manner, and will publish the results of my exami- 
nation.— E. C. Rye, 7, Park Field, Putney, S.W. 
Note on Saprinus (Gnathoncus) punctulatus. Thorns. — Among gome insects 
sent to me for examination by Mr. Jos. Chappell of Manchester, I find a specimen 
of a Saprinus (taken at Lytham) which has raised in my mind a certain amount of 
doubt as to there being suflBcient specific distinction between 8. punctulatus 
(already recorded as British, from the London district, Ent. Ann., 1867), and 
rotundatus. Thomson's chief characters for his pimciulatus, as compared with the 
latter, appear to be its smaller size (I lin. as against IJ lin.) and lighter antenucO, 
legs, and hinder parts of the elytra, which are more sparingly punctured, and have 
no sutural stria. Now Mr. Chappell' s insect is quite H lin- long (my I^ondon- 
district specimens averaging 1 line only), has the antennae, legs, and hinder part 
of elytra darker, and the punctuation of the elytra closer (being quite confluent 
behind) than in my above-mentioned smaller examples, — so far agreeing with the 
differential characters for rotundatus. But its sutural stria is so very short that it 
may be considered as absent, for it requires a " Coddington " to show that it is 
represented by the confluence of three basal punctures only. Now, in the much 
smaller London examples above alluded to (all of which have lighter legs and apex 
to elytra, and less closely punctured elytra), the sutui-al stria varies considerably, 
