THE AQUATIC COLEOPTERA OF THE SOLWAY DISTRICT 8 



:) 



November 1895, which I have seen. The Lanes S. record 

 is given by Mr. W. E. Sharp for Bolton {" Vict. County 

 History, Lanes," 1906), and there is a "local " specimen in 

 the Reston Collection in the Manchester Museum. The 

 Cumberland record is given as " Carlisle, T. C. Heysham," in 

 the "Vict. County History," 1901. 



There are very few records for this species even in the 

 eastern counties. It was common in Norfolk E. many 

 years ago near Brundall Station, where it was taken by' Dr. 

 Sharp, and in 1904-5 it swarmed at the Palling Brick Pits 

 in the same vice-county, but it gradually got scarcer so that 

 in 1906 it was hard to find. The localities, "Horning, 

 Stalham, and Brundall are given by Edwards (Norfolk 

 Coleoptera, "Trans. Norf and Norw. Nat. Soc," 1893), and 

 there is a " Ranworth " specimen in the Power Collection. 



The species was first taken in Suffolk (Carney's " Ent. 

 Annual," 1865, p. 40), and other records for that county are 

 mentioned by Morley (''Col. of Suffolk," 1899). The Cam- 

 bridge record is for a specimen or specimens taken at 

 Horseway by Mr. J. F. Button, who kindly sent me a list of 

 his captures, and the Essex record rests upon the capture of 

 " several in shallow pools in a ballast pit " (B. S. Harwood, 

 "EMM." XXXV. 72, 1899). 



Thus Suffolk and Norfolk seem to be the centre of this 

 species in Britain as they are the only counties from which 

 there is, so far, more than one record, and the occurrence of 

 specimens so far away as Lanes and Cumberland — and 

 perhaps Dumfries — seems to have been due to chance. 



There seems to be no record of Agabtcs uliginosus 

 having occurred in the Solway district. Sharp mentions 

 records for Forth and Dee districts, quoting from Murray's 

 "Catalogue" : — " Rare, near Edinburgh; Aberdeenshire," and 

 then says — " I think it probable that individuals of A. 

 ■ congener, Thunb., were mistaken for this species. A. uliginosus, 

 however, has been found in Northumberland, so that it may 

 ultimately prove to be a Scottish species." This species has 

 since occurred in Cumberland as I learn from Mr. F. H. 

 Day (who has kindly sent me a list of additions to the 

 Cumberland list given in the "Victoria County History," 

 1901), and in the Dublin Museum Collection there is a 



