220 [October, 



I have seen ex coll. Cbaiiipiou, a specimen from Amber ley, Sussex, and 

 one from Caterham, Surrey, the latter long ago determined by E-eitter 

 as B. disthictus. Amberley and Caterham are given in Coleopt. Brit. 

 Isl. Ill, p. 92, as localities for B. hurrellii, but it is probable that 

 Mr. Champion's specimens just mentioned formed the basis for these 

 records. 



B. cuRTisii, Denny. 



This species may be easily recognised in either sex by the elongate 

 last joint of the palpi. 



B. BULBiFER, Reich. 

 This, the commonest of our species, calls for no special remark. 



B. cLAvicoRNis, Panz. 



Denny (Mon. Psel., p. 28, t. V. f. 4) described and figured under 

 the name of ArcopiKjus glahricollh, a Bythinus of Avhich the more 

 important featiu-es were the smooth thorax and the production in one 

 sex of the inner apical angle of the first joint of the antennae. He 

 thought that this was the same nsglLibricolUs, Reichenbach (Mon. Psel., 

 p. 43, t. 1, f. 8, 1816). I find that Reichenbach's description and figure 

 do not afford the means of identifying any species in particular ; but 

 Reitter (Naturg. Ins. Deutschl. Ill, 2, p. 73), in the course of what is 

 by far the best account of B. clavicornh with which I am acquainted, 

 puts (jlahricolUs, Reich., as a synonym of that species, and adds that it 

 occurs in England. Schaum stated (Zoologist, 1847) that Denny's 

 Areopagus glabricollis was only the female of B. hvlhifer. This opinion, 

 though adopted by E. C. Rye (Ent. Ann., 1870, p. 117), and apparently 

 by subsequent writers also, is evidently an error, because Denny's insect 

 had the inner apical angle of the first antennal joint produced into a 

 small sharp tooth, a feature which certainly does not occiu' in the female 

 of B. bulbifer. For more than thirty years I have had in my collection 

 a Bythinus which came to me from the collection of Denny's Colleague, 

 Wigliam, labelled glahricoUis ; I have now dissolved the glue away from 

 this and find that it is a female and differs from that sex of B. bulbifer 

 in having the first joint of the antenuse less than twice as long as wide. 

 I should not, however, regard anything less than the production of an 

 vuidoubted male as conclusive evidence of the occurrence of B. clavicornis 

 in this country. B. clavicorms might easily be passed over as B. bulbifer, 

 but the absence of a large protuberance on tlie inner side of the first 

 joint of the male antennae in the former is quite characteristic. 



