1B1(5.] 219 



the ^ of signafa, although its ? is so entirely different in appearance. 

 It is indeed evident that in all cases the c? (^ of the ruficornis group 

 are far harder to differentiate than the ? ? , and still require a great 

 deal of close study. However, this parasite of fulva appears to me to 

 have the wings less flavescent, the antennae slightly shorter or thicker, 

 and the hind femora rather stouter than in Jiava, but the great 

 variability in the size of individuals of the latter makes it most diffi- 

 cult to appreciate such characters of degree. 



As to the smaller forms of rnficnrnis, parasitic on A. synadelpha 

 and A. lapponica, these are easily distinguished from Jiava by the wing- 

 colour and general appearance, their range of variation being also quite 

 different. The fringe beneath the middle femora iu these forms is 

 always long. 



Since the above notes were written a careful examination of 

 N. jiava. in May and June of this year showed it to be an abundant 

 parasite of A. trimmer ana, but no evidence could be obtained of its 

 attacking any other species. The female of N. iateralis Sm. (nee 

 Saunders) was found in Grlamorganshire by Mr. H. M. Hallett, as a 

 parasite of A. hucephala, confirming the old observations made by 

 Smith and Shuckard on Hampstead Heath. . 



Park Hill House, Paignton : 

 August 10th, 1916. 



ADDITIONS AND COEEECTIONS IN THE GENUS ERNOBIUS; 



WITH NOTES ON THE COPULA. 



BY D. SHARP, M.A., F.B.S. 



At the time of my brief communication on this genus in the 

 August number of this Magazine, I was aware that we probably had 

 in this country more species than I there alluded to, but I thovight it 

 well to wait till I had more information about collections other than 

 my own before bringing forward additional novelties. I have now ex- 

 amined the collections of Mr. Champion, the British, and the Cambridge 

 Museums, and series submitted to me by Mr. W. E. Sharp and 

 Mr. A. Ford. I have also made numerous fresh dissections, and have 

 become convinced that Mulsant was wrong in the course he adopted 

 as to the application of the name "mollis." Hence the following notes. 



Ernobins mollis Linn. 



Ernohivs mollis L., auctt. plur. ; Sharp and Muir, Tr. Ent. Soc. 

 London, 1912, pi. Ixiv, figs. 134 and 134a. 



T 2 



