288 tMay 
rulro-cupreis, lateribus viridi-ceneis ; capUe inter oculos strigoso ; elytris 
ut in O. cayennensi grosse creberrimeque punctatisyfuseo-cupreis, lateribus 
viridi-eeneis et cupreis, macula alba unica marginali ; labrorufo ; pedibua 
vufis, tibiis posticis pallidioribus, tarsis anticis Icete violaceis ; prothorace 
subtus nigro-cyaneo,pectore aldomineque piceo-violaceis, hoc apicepallidiori. 
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 
differs 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 O. cayennensis 
of Guiana. 
Odontocheila catennensis. 
Cicindela cayennensis, Fab., Mantissa, 1, 187 (1787). 
id., Oliv., Ent., No. 33, p. 23, pi. 1, f 2 (1790). 
„ Upmctata, Fab., 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 Fabricius 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- 
scribed two species under the two Fabrician 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. 
