1877.1 11 



EEMARKS ON SOME BEITISH mSMIPTERA-HETEROPTERA. 

 BY O. M. EEriEE. 



Messrs. Douglas and Scott have lately compiled " A Catalogue of 

 "^YXti^h. Semiptera'''' (being part of a proposed general catalogue of 

 the insects of the British Isles, published by the Entomological Society 

 of London); and Mr. E. Saunders has published a " Synopsis of British 

 Hemiptera-Heteroptcra'' (Transact. Ent. Soc, 1875 and 1876), which 

 is distinguished by a critical examination of the species and concise 

 diagnoses. These works have many differences in the nomenclature 

 and limitation of the species. Since my journey last summer in Britain, 

 I am especially interested in the Hemipterous Fauna of the country, 

 and now offer some observations u])on the denominations of some of 

 the species ; and although I do not approve the system of classification 

 adopted by Messrs. Douglas and Scott, I follow it in presenting my 

 remarks. 



Pentatoma baccarum (Catal., 4, 2) is not the true Clmex haccarum, 

 L., which, according to the examination made by Mr. Dallas, is P. 

 fuscispina, Boh., and the above-mentioned species must be named 

 P. verhasci, De Greer. According to Mr. Saunders, P. nigricornis, 

 Dougl. and Scott (Brit. Hem., 78, 1), is synonymous with P. haccarum, 

 L., Dall. I have not seen the typical specimens of the species described 

 by the English authors, but it seems surprising that the right nigri- 

 cornis, Fabr., should not occur in Britain. It is rather common in 

 Finland, where P. haccarum, L., Dall., is not yet found. 



[Linne's description of Cimex haccarum in the " Fauna Succica," 2nd edition, is 

 comprised in these words : " ovatus griseus ; abdominis margine nigro maculato. 

 Fn. 650." This No. 650 refers to the " Fauna Suecica," 1st edition, where the words 

 are the same except that " ovatus " is there omitted. But in this Ist edition is 

 added : " Descr. Thorax non prominet utrinque in acumen laterale uti in specie 

 exotica." In the citations, in both editions, from the synonymous descriptions by 

 other authors is given : — " List, mut., p. 396, n. 36. Cimex ex luteo virescente infus- 

 catus corniculis maculatis similiter ad alvi margines nigris maculis elegauter inter- 

 stinctus." All this cannot apply to P. fuscispina, Boh., nor to P. nigricornis, Fab., 

 where the lateral angles of the pronotum are very prominent and the antcnnaj black. 

 In the citation, " Eaj. ins. p. 54, n. 2," the words " scapulis magis exstantibus " must 

 be taken as comparative with the preceding species, No. 1 {P.juniperina). Of the 

 figures referi'cd to, " Jonst. inst., t. 17, f. 9 " is not recognisable as any species, and 

 "List, mut., t. 31, f. 19," although very rude, does not represent P. fuscispina, the 

 lateral angles being rounded. So far then the evidence is in favour of P. haccarum, 

 D. and S., being the Cimex haccarum, Lin. On the other hand, the citation in the 

 " Systema Naturtc," 721, 45, of " Scop, earn., 360," in which occur the words " Mari 

 antennae unicolores . . . FemincB antenn. articulo duo ultinii basi flavescentes," 

 seems not only not to refer to our haccarum, but to apply to two different species. 



