1907. 79 



very dusky wings. The structure of the antennae readily distin- 

 guishes it from anything with whicii it might otherwise be possible to 

 confuse it. 



KiiADiNOCER^A, Knw. 



Our only species is micans, Kl. (not to be confounded with the 

 Blennocampa micans of Cam., vol. i, which the author states in vol. 

 iv to be a Tomostethus) . It is superficially very like P. aterrima, 

 having nearly the same size and quite the same funereal appearance 

 (black body, dusky wings, &c.), but the antennae are not ciliated, and 

 their 3rd, 4th, and 5th joints are approximately equal. It differs 

 also from aterrima^ and from other similarly coloured Blennocampid 

 spp. (e. g., Tomostethus nif/ri,tns, &c.) by having the eyes distinctly, 

 though not very widely, remote from the bases of the mandibles. 



I first found British specimens of this insect in Mr. McLachlan's 

 collection, and afterwards one in my own (mixed with aterrima). The 

 latter was taken here, i. e., at Woking. 



Pareophoba, Knw. 

 In this genus the eyes are very remote from the mandibles, and 

 the claws are quite simple, not bifid or toothed, as in nearly all the 

 Blennocampides. Our only species is niqripcs, Kl. It is brightly 

 coloured for a Blennocampid, and of slenderer build than is usual in 

 that tribe, measuring about 5 mm. in length, and hardly more than 

 1 m. in breadth. The head and thorax are black, the abdomen pale 

 red, and there is a closed (medial) cellule in the hind-wings. Super- 

 ficially it resembles a much commoner British Blennocampid, vizi^ 

 JS. ajpnis. Fall, {assimilis, C). But in affinis the eyes are close to 

 the mandibles, and the hind-wings have no closed medial cellule, ao 

 that the two insects ought not to be confounded ; and we have no 

 other British Blennocampid for which nigripes could possibly be 

 mistaken. 



(To be continuedj. 



HYDR.ENA BRITTENI, sr. Nov., A NEW BEITISH BEETLE. 

 BY NORMAN 11. JOT, M.R.C.S., F.E.S. 



Some months ago Mr. Britten sent me several specimens of a 

 Hydrcena which he told me were regarded by the north country 

 Coleopterists as H. nigrita, Germ., but they appeared to him to differ 

 in several respects from the south counti-y form of this species. At 

 the time I only had in my collection specimens of this north country 



