254 [November, 



Europe aud Siberia. It is figured by Jacquelin Duval [Gen. Col. 

 Europ., IV, pi. 75, fig. 358] aud Eeitter [Fauna (lermauica, III, 

 pi. 98, figs. 12fl (larva), 12b (imago)]. 



Oxford and Cambridge Club, S.W. : 

 October oth, 1916. 



SPHAERIESTES (RABOCEBUS) GABRIELI Gerh , 



A BEITISH SPECIES. 



BY PROF. T. HUDSON BEARE, B.Sc. F.R.S.E., F.E.S. 



While examining my specimens of this genus, I discovered that 

 .the two examples standing under the name foveolahis Ljungh were 

 wrongly named, and that they were in reality gabrieli Gerh. This 

 species (Eeitter, " Fauna Germanica," Vol. Ill, p. 417) differs from 

 foveolatus in the following respects : the head and thorax are deeply 

 and thickly punctured, and the six terminal joints of the antennae are 

 darker and thicker than the remaining joints, v.hile the punctuation of 

 the upper side of foveolatus is fine, and only five terminal joints of the 

 antennae are darker and thicker. There are other slight dift'ei'ences. 

 Reitter states that gabrieli was discovered by Gen. Gabriel in the 

 mountains of Silesia, that Konow found it in numbers in Mecklenburg 

 but confused it with foveolatus, and that he has received the species 

 from Sahlberg from Finland. 



One of my specimens was found under the bark of a small dead 

 beech on the northern slopes of the Pentlands on March 12th, 1904, 

 and the other at Nethy Bridge on September 12th, 1908, in flood refuse 

 on the banks of the Spey (the refuse which produced Oloplirum 

 assimile). 



Under present circumstances it is impossible to obtain Continental 

 examples for comparison purposes, but I have no doubt that my 

 determination is correct^ — the anteunal characters and the punctuation 

 seem decisive. 



There are very few records of the capture of 8. foveolatus in 

 England, and only two in Scotland. I have examined the insects 

 standing under this name in the Waterhouse Collection (now the 

 property of the University of Edinburgh), and find that one, which is 

 in perfect condition, agrees in every respect with my two specimens, 

 and shows all the characters which differentiate gabrieli from foveola- 

 tus. The other three examples are smaller, and somewhat imperfect, 

 and I am uncertain as to what species they really are. 



