174 [August, 



Unfortunately, there is not inucli difference between the females 

 of these two species, and it is not ])ossible to decide this question 

 definitely without seeing the males. 



The male of F. decipiens agrees in structure generally with that 

 of F. auricularla : the pygidium is similar, and the forceps only 

 differ in the presence or absence of the median tooth at the end of 

 the dihited part ; this is })resent in F. auricuhiria and absent in 

 F. decf2)iens ; the forceps and j)ygidium of the females of these 

 species do not differ. 



In size and colour the two are alike, except that F. decipiens is 

 somewhat |)aler, the head and [)rouotum being especially lighter. 



The antennae of F. auriciiJm'ia usually have 14 segments ; those 

 of F. decipiens have 12 ; my two females from Compton have 13. 



The pronotum of F. auricuhiria has the posterior margin gently 

 rounded ; in F. decipiens it is almost straight; ia my Compton Bay 

 specimens, it is not so straight as in typical F. decipiens, but not so 

 rounded as in F. nurlcularin. 



Tn F. decipiens the elytra are not only very distinctly shorter in 

 proportion than in F. auricularia, but sharply truncate at the ends ; 

 in F. auricularia they are almost sinuate at the ends. In the form 

 of the elytra, these specimens from Compton agree exactly and 

 entirely with F. decipiens, and there are no traces whatever of wings, 

 thus also agreeing with F. decipiens. 



The pitting of the abdomen seems to me to be a trifle stronger 

 in F. decipiens than in F. auricularia, and in this the Compton 

 specimens agree with F. decipiens; I do not, however, put much faith 

 in this, as it is only a question of degree, and the eye may see what 

 the mind wishes to discover. 



Now% in colour and in the form of the elytra and absence of 

 wings, these specimens agree perfectly with F. decipiens ; in the form 

 of the pronotum and antennje they approach rather to this species 

 than to F. auricularia. It will therefore be asked, what is the 

 objection to calling them F. decipiens? The objection is this, that 

 F. decipiens is a meridional insect. The situation of these Compton 

 Bay specimens, in a pile of horse-dung on the coast of the Isle of 

 AVight, far from towns and farther still from a port, points to a 

 natural occurrence, and this species has not yet been recorded as a 

 traveller like Apterygida arachidis, Anisolabis annulipes, and to a less 

 extent, F. auricularia. It is therefore highly improbable that F. 

 decipiens should be a native of England. It is a common insect in 



