12 ,Juno, 



In the Linnean collection arc three examples of (as I suppose) P.ftiscisphja, 

 Boh., with a label attached to one of them on which is written "34. JaecarMw/'ancl 

 one example (which is our baccarum) labelled " 135. an baccarum ? " If the evidence 

 of the first mentioned example can be held to be decisiye of the question, although 

 it does not accord with the descriptions adopted by Linne, I have only to say that I 

 do not concur. The evidence afPorded by an author's collection is admissible when 

 it corroborates or elucidates his description of a species, but not when opposed to it ; 

 and this position is doubly strong in the case of the Linnean collection, which, it is 

 well known, is not in the condition in which Linne left it. It is easy to see that 

 the accidental transposition of the labels above referred to would make all the differ- 

 in the testimony, but whether thei-e has been any such change or not I think the 

 collection will have to be left out of reference, and I believe that the majority of the 

 old authors are right in their determination of Ciniex baccarum, Lin. 



Dr. Reuter appears to believe that P.fuscispina, Boh., and P. nigricornis, Fab., 

 are distinct, but Fieber wrote (Wien. cnt. Monats., vii, 55) : — " Pentatomafuscispinum, 

 " Boh., ist einer der vielen Abanderungen in der Farbung von Mormidea nigricornis 

 " und zwar die gemeinste,von bleicher,schmutzig-gclblicherFarbung,mit ungcfleckteui 

 " Connexivum und eckigen Schultern." — J. W. D.] 



Neides paralleltjs (Catal., 12, 1). — This species is only the 

 forma hraclniptera of N. tipularius, L. {vide Reut. Eem. synon. sui* 

 quelques Hemipt., in iVun. Soc. ent. de France, Ser. 5, iv). 



\_Neides parallelns, Ficb., may be only the imperfectly developed form of iV^. 

 tipularius, but it can hardly be termed brachypteroiis, for it has fully developed 

 elytra, the wings only being short. It is curious that the two forms do not occur, 

 with us, in the same localities. — J. W. D.] 



Beettus Signoeeti (Catal. , 11, 2) is mentioned as British by 

 Messrs. Douglas and Scott, but not by Mr. Saunders, who says 

 (Synops., 13G, 2) that B. Sk/noreti, D. and S. (not Ficb.), is synony- 

 mous with J5. pycimcBus, Eeut. (0£v. Yet. Akad. Forh., 602, 5, 1870). 

 I have obtained from Mr. Saunders one specimen of the last species, 

 taken in England ; and I found another specimen near Aberdeen. 

 But aa Messrs. Douglas and Scott enumerate also this species, perhaps 

 both {pygmceus, Eeut., and Signoreti, Eieb.) occur in Britain. (Mr. 

 Saunders has, however, communicated in his letters to me that the 

 B. Signoreti, D. and S. {iiec Ficb.!), and B. pygmceus, Eeut., ai*e 

 without doubt identical.) 



[The original English examples were named Berytus Signoreti by Fieber ; in a 

 subsequent letter (lOlh Sept., 1863) is this line : — " Es war eine Irrthum dass ich den 

 Namen Signoreti *statt pygmaus setzte ;" but still later (12th December, 1863) he 

 wrote : — " Berylus Signoreti, Fieb., ob var. vom pygmaus, Fieb. ? " I coidd not find 

 that Fieber had described a species under this latter name, and I therefore concluded 

 that he Lud ceased to believe that pygmceus was distinct from Signoreti, but not 



