12 [January, 



statement is, at least, misleading. Tlic insect was introduced into onr lists 

 about the year 1864 {vide Ent. Ann., I860), under the name of S. littoralis. 

 Thorns., and is mentioned by Fowler (Brit. Col. ii, 343) iinder the name of 

 S. crassus, Steph., var. littoralis, Thoms. The eri-or in describing it as new to 

 Britain is the more remarkable, as the 1906 European Catalogue, and also 

 Ganglbauer himself, from whose work the specimen referred to appears to have 

 been originally named, both give littoralis, Thoms., as a synonym of formice- 

 torum, Mann. — E. A. Newbery, 13, Oppidans Koad, N.W. : December Hth, 1911. 



Olophrum nicholsoni, Donisth., in Scotland. — When examining some flood 

 rubbish sent to me a short time ago from Dalwhinnie, Inverness-shire (elev. 

 1100 ft.), I came across an Olophrum which I thought from its general aspect 

 when alive was 0. consimile, Gyll., a species I have twice taken in moss brought 

 from the siunmit of Ben Wyvis, Eoss-shire. On closer examination, the hind 

 angles of the thorax proved to be entire, and the specimen is evidently a large 

 dark form of 0. nicholsoni, Donisth. This is a particularly noteworthy capture, 

 as the latter species has, so far, only been recorded from Wicken Fen, and it is 

 of some interest to note that the insect is apterous. I took a few examples of 

 0. fuscum, Grav., some years ago from Sphagnum in this neighoiirhood, a 

 locality many miles further south than any hitherto recorded. It has been 

 suggested that 0. nicholsoni is only an extreme form of 0. fuscum. It appears 

 to me, from external structiire alone, to be an abundantly distinct species, and 

 a dissection of the aedeagus confirms this opinion. Although this organ only 

 differs slightly in the three species, 0. piceum, 0. fuscum, and 0. nicholsoni, I 

 think there can be no doubt that these differences are specific. — Norman H. 

 Jot, Bradfield, Berks: December '7th, 1911. 



Coleoptera at Ealing, 1911.— Two or three evenings diu'ing the summer 

 I joru-neyed Ealing-wards, principally with the idea of again working at the 

 Cossus-infected trees. Most of the species typical of this habitat and locality 

 were again observed, and several others not heretofore noticed around Ealing. 

 On June 20th I re-visited the infested jDoplar in Edge Hill Road, when 

 among the Tachinus bipustulatxis, F., I picked out one or two Tachinus scapu- 

 laris, Steph., not before recorded as addicted to Cossus trees, I believe. On 

 June 26th I discovered an old long-infested poplar on Ealing Common ; this 

 tree was partially hollowed out, the interior contained a qi;antity of larval 

 i"ejectanienta, old cocoons, and wood-)noukl. Tachimis bipustulatxis and both 

 species of Thamiarssa were the principal occupants. But I also found Qnedius 

 ventralis, Ahr., several ; Philonthus fuscus, Gr., several ; and one Hister merda- 

 rius, Hoffm. Prognatha q^iadricornis, Kirb., was noticed under loose bark of this 

 tree. June 27th found me at Peri vale, by the side of the Kiver Brent : here I 

 came across a somewhat recently infected ash. From the small patches of 

 exuding Cossus aliments and tree-sap, by very careful manipulation, I secured 

 a nice series of Silusa rubiginosa, Er. Under small pieces of bark, I took one 

 specimen of Opilo mollis, L., and Hypophlceus bicolor, 01., apparently in no way 

 interested in the Cossus burrows or exudations. I submit these records as 

 being of interest on account of the very suburban nature of the locality con- 

 cerned. — Hereward C. Dollman, Hove House, Bedford Park: December, 1911. 



