224 
ZOOLOGICAL LITKRATUIIC. 
Iltrtnalata tereticomis, Wankowiez, Ann, Soc. Ent, Fr. 4« s«5r. ix. p. 420 
klinsk ; II. timem, Baiidi, 1. c. p. 378, note, Piedmont j II. 5ericop}iila^ Baudi, 
1. c. p. 379, note, originally found in unmanufactured silk, afterwards received 
from Apennines and Duomod’ossola. 
Phlcoojiora amjustiformisj Baudi, 1. c. p. 370, note, Apennines. 
Gijrophcena carpiniy Baudi, 1. c. p. 380, Piedmont, 
Tachyporides, 
Pandelle (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 4® ser. ix. pp. 261-36G) lias mo- 
nographed the European species of this family ; wliicli, as re- 
stricted by him, contains HypocyptuSy Conw'uSy Tachypoi'uSy Ha- 
hroccruSy Cileaj Tachinus and Bolitobius. TanyynathuSy as 
usual, following Kraatz, and THchophya are rejected (no better 
position, however, being suggested for the latter) ; Lamprinus is 
sunk as a subgeiius of Tachypat'us ; Leucoparyphus (Kraatz) is 
deposed in favour of Cilea (Du Val), in which Coproporus (Kraatz) 
is also included ; Drymoporus (Thomson) is reincorporated with 
Tachinus \ and B/yoporus and Lordithon (Tlioms.) are merged 
ill BolitobiuSy which is divided into three subgenera, Megacronus, 
Bolitobius, and Mycetoporus. Conurus (Stephens) is rightly re- 
instated, in place of Conosoma (Kraatz) ; but Pandelle, who can 
thus be just in the case of a genus, is the reverse as regards 
species ; for he intimates that, altliough certain of the Ste- 
phensian Tachyporidac can be satisfactorily determined by 
their descriptions, he finds it inconvenient to disturb the names 
now in use for them. Considering Erichson incorrect, Pan- 
delle publishes fresh characters for the family ; and in his 
subsequent descriptions makes great use of the sctiferous punc- 
tures and tlic space between the middle and posterior coxai; 
relying avowedly on characters externally accessible. The mo- 
nograph, which is very ingeniously constructed, is, however, so 
essentially a table in itself, consisting wholly of references, that 
it is very difficult to work from it, 
Ilypocyptes rufipes (Kraatz), according to Pandelle (/. c. p. 282), who 
lias examined all Kraatz’s types but that of II. tamneornis, is possibly 
only a crippled II. lonyicornis. II. rufipes (Stephens, Cypha) he thinks should 
belong to another genus j but the rufipes of Kraatz was, so long ago as 1858, 
referred to lonyicmmis in Waterhouse’s Catalogue, which also identifies 
Stephens’s insect with that species. Pandelle does not seem to have ob- 
served the copious and correct Stephensian synonymy in this catalogue j as he 
mentions another source of information for Stephens’s species, as to which he 
is sometimes incorrect. 
Ilypocyptus pyymceus (Kraatz), according to Pandelld, 1. c. p. 284,= the 
prior niyripes of Stephens, which he reinstates. According to Waterhouse’s 
catalogue (correctly, as the Becorderhas verified by examination), Stephens’s 
niyripes is nothing but lonyicornis. 
