209 
,s on M. FoMdelUh Monograph of the European Tachyporidm.-U. Lonis 
having recently (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de Fr.. 4- seric, T. 9-, 1869, p. 261 
oublishedWs "fetude monographiqne sur les Staphylins Earopeens de a 
' Tachyponni, Erichson," I propose briefly to notice that work, and especially 
attention to such parts of it as are likely to interest British coleoptensts. 
Pandelle, thinking Erichson incorrect in his chief character for this family 
, insertion of the antenna, at the base of the forehead, beneath a lateral 
,ve the mandibles and below the eyes), rejects from it Trichophya (for which 
ests, however, no other location) and (following Kraatz) Tanygnathus. He 
ly omits reference to the parts of the mouth, relying upon more accessible 
[ modifications ; prominent among which are the number and position of the 
.s punctures, and the proportionate length of the coxal interval of the 
mum (i.e., the space between the rims of the cavities of the intermediate 
terior coxKj). 
th re-ard to the Stephensian species, he remarks as follows- Thanks to 
rotch of Cambridge, who has generously communicated to me the extensive 
rches which he has made upon the species of Stephens, I have also been able 
-e the synonymy of that author; but it is easy to perceive with certainty 
Stephens has described varieties rather than species ; and, when even a species 
ognisable in his description, I cannot resolve to give his name priority over 
of Erichson and Kraatz, because I find it a great inconvenience to substitute 
name adopted by everybody, one that has been abandoned (d4laiss4)^ and of 
1 the legitimacy is nearly always open to contest." Without seemg the 
ity for troubling anew any British coleopterist for information which has been 
1858 before the public in Mr. Waterhouse's catalogue, wherein are (with 
nany more) the few Stephensian synonyms given by M. Pandelle, I would 
• remark, that, where Stephens' species are good, as it ish ere admitted some 
.eir validity will not be afi-ected by M. Pandelle's convenience or otherwise ; 
,hat where good, they have not been abandoned by us ; and that the other 
, have not been adopted by " everybody,"-unless two generations of British 
.lists are to be considered as not included in that comprehensive term. ^ 
bandoning, as above intimated, the Erichsonian characters, M. Pandelle 
Ids to enumerate his own: these are very ingenious, but are too long for 
Jription, and not very capable of condensation ; the result of them being that 
.niily, as restricted by him, may be distinguished from the O.ytelini, OmaUm 
t from the absence of ocelli), Piestini, and Proteini by the head being smooth, 
less and without impression or elevation at the base of the antennae, and by 
tor^ being more extensively contracted in front than at the base ; and from 
ther StapT^yMmdce by the defiexed side-pieces of the elytra being wide and 
ed on their upper sides by a sharp and well marked ridge. 
His cenera are as M\o..s:-Hypocyptus, Conurus (M. Pandelle finds no m- 
enien'^ce in adopting this Stephensian genus in preference to the contmentally- 
Conoso^na of Kraatz, who proposed that modification of it on account of there 
^ a prior genus Conurus in birds), Tachyporus (of which he makes two sub- 
L, Lnprinus and TacUyporus proper), Eabrocerus, CUea, Duv. (i^/^ding the 
equent Leucoparyphus and Copropho^^s of Kraatz), TacUnus and BoletoUus 
wards referred to as BoUtohiusJ. The latter genus is made to mclude the 
