98 [May, 



porte a la regarder comme un Dicaelotus ; la face posterieure du meta- 

 thorax est en pente mi peu oblique, avec I'areole mediane fortement 

 concave." A couple of years later, Brisclike (Sclir. Gres. Konig., ii, 

 1861, p. 35) claims, but with a query, to know both sexes of the var. 

 3 ; and gives the same structural details as Wesmael — " area supero- 

 media Ijinglich, area posteromedia vertieft, Postpetiolus glilnzeud" — 

 adding that Ratzeburg's ? I. suspicax (Ichn. cl. Forst., iii, p. 166 — nee 

 Wesm.) may well be synonymous. This latter was bred from Cerambyx 

 populneus, and is placed as a distinct, though inadeqiaately described, 

 species by Dalla Torre. But, since Brischke places his inisillator in 

 the genus Diadromus and entirely omits it in his 1878 paper, it can 

 hardly have been the original species. 



No author has referred to the structure of the bead, which is strongly 

 buccate with very broad vertex, and this feature (strictly) excludes it 

 from Dicaelotus as at present constituted, though in every other way 

 it agrees entirely with the generic characters. From our other species 

 it is distinguished by the very oblique declivity of the metathorax, the 

 strongly discreted and trans -aciculate petiolar area, deplanate scutellum, 

 subparallel- sided abdomen, and glabrous postpetiole, with the rest of 

 the abdomen finely and obsoletely puiictate. 



So far we have no reliable records but the two original $ $ 

 from Finland and Sickershausen, with the vars. 1-8 from Silesia, 

 Germany and Piedmont ; and Rondani's breeding from Notodonta sp. 

 was also pretty surely in Italy. Neither Berthoumieu, in 1806, nor 

 Schmiedeknecht, in 1904, knew the insect ; none of the Swedish 

 authors have met with it ; and it was uni-ecorded from France in 1908. 



Two females occurred to me on September 16th, 1914, by sweeping 

 reeds in the salt marshes of the Buss Creek at Southwold in Suffolk. 

 Unfortunately no male was seen. 



4. — MiSETUs ocuLATUs Wesm. (Ichn. Brit., i, p. 293). 



In 1903 I was unable to confirm Dr. Capron's tentative deter- 

 mination of a (^ that he ascribed to this species, though I could with 

 certainty repudiate a 5 he had placed with it. Since that time two 

 (J (^ have occurred to me at the Wilverley Inclosure and Queen Bower 

 in the New Forest, on June 14th, 1907, and July 11th, 1909 ; and a 

 comparison shows Capron's specimen to be correctly named. Hence it 

 is now known from both Surrey and Hampshire, and must be allowed 

 a permanent position in the British list. I have seen no female yet. 



