Comments. The material (PRM 907122) is surely conspecific with Lachnum impudicum in its original sense, represented for the purpose of my study by descriptions, drawings and ecological data by Baral (in Baral and Krieglsteiner 1985) and Baral (2003). However, it seems very probable, that the material is only a younger representative of Lachnum pubescens. In comparison with L. pubescens it yields only slightly smaller values in all characters. Lachnum impudicum possibly belongs to the synonymy of Lachnum pubescens. Only the phenology of L. pubescens does not agree with data (September - May) given for Lachnum impudicum by Baral (in Baral and Krieglsteiner 1985) and Baral (pers. comm.), because I revised also collections of Lachnum pubescens from summer.