JAPANESE WOEK ON DEEMAPTERA. 18? 



this larva should be referred it is impossible to say; very likely to 

 jF. mikado. It is certain that it cannot stand as good. 



No. II is a supplement to No. I, and, like that paper, is fortunately 

 illustrated by a plate which, though not very clear, is still useful. 



Labidarodcfin'Kjritm (p. 91, fig. 1) is described as having the body 

 robust, but the figure belies this ; compared with the figure given by 

 Dubrony of L. robufitiif:, the type of the genus, it is decidedly slender; 

 the appearance of the creature, and long, slim forceps, show that it is 

 not a Labidnrodes: it is probably one of the Labiidae, and is very 

 likely a good species. Labidnrodes furmosanit^{]i. 92, fig. 2) is described 

 as a male, but the figure looks suspiciously like that of a female and is 

 suggestive of CheUaochidae. It is recorded from Formosa, and so 

 belongs to the rich Oriental fauna. Like the preceding, it is probably 

 not a iMbidnrodcs, but its true position cannot be suggested until the 

 type be examined, nor determined until the male be associated with it. 



Aninolabis pallipes (p. 93, fig. 3) has rudimentary elytra, and so we 

 must place it m the recentlj^ -erected genus BorelUa, Burr ; no species 

 of the genus has yet been recorded from Japan. The male is not 

 known ; it is probably a good species. 



Anisolabis fallax (p. 94, fig. 4) is compared with A. margirialis, 

 Dohrn. The writer of this notice possesses three species of Anisolabis 

 from Port Hamilton, Tsushima, and " Japan " respectively, but is 

 uncertain which to refer to the true A. manjinalis of Dohrn, as he has 

 so far had no opportunity of examining the type. A. fallax is probably 

 to be referred to one of these. The points referred to by the author to 

 separate it from A. warfiinalis, are mere distinctions, without being 

 differences ("dunkler," "nicht heller," " aber deutlich duenner"), and 

 so we have little hesitation in sinking it as a synonym. 



A. picens (p. 94) only differs from A. fallax in having 27 segments 

 on the antenme, instead of 16 (probably the others have been broken 

 off in A. fallax). This is a valueless character, as these organs are 

 very subject to damage, even during the life of the insect ; it is not 

 even known what is the normal number in the common F.anricidaria, 

 L. The other character lies in the unicolorous feet and antennae. 

 Whoever has handled many specimens of A. annidipes knows how 

 untrustworthy this is. Consequently we sink A. jiiceus as a synonym 

 of A. fallax, and therefore probably of A. inan/inalis. 



No. III. This paper is unfortunately not illustrated, so we must 

 struggle with the descriptions. As all new species described are from 

 Formosa, this is the more difficult, the Der)iiaptera-ia,una> oi that island 

 being practically unknown ; we may expect many of these new species 

 to be good, but it is quite impossible to determine their affinities with- 

 out seeing the types or receiving fresh material from Formosa. 



Labidnrodes okinaivaensis (p. 7) is compared with L. formosanus, 

 Shir. It may well be only a variety. 



L. siwinlaris (p. 8) is compared with L. niijritia^, but the pygidium 

 is different. 



Forficida ruficeps (pp. 8-9) is certainly not Forficida rajicepsof. Erich- 

 son [Arch. f. Natimjr., viii. (1), p. 246, 1842), which is an Australian 

 Neso(/aster : nor is it Forficida ruficeps of Burmeister [Handb., ii., 

 p. 755, 1838), which is a Mexican Keolobophora. From the description 

 of the forceps, it seems to be a true Forficida, and is probably a 



