116 [April, 1801. 



SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS SCOLOPOSTETHUS. 

 BY G. HORVATH M.D. 



Ill vol. XXV of this Magazine, Messrs. James Edwards and Edward 

 Saunders have published several papers on the British species of the 

 genus Scolopostethus, Fieb. The two authors do not agree on the 

 subject, and whereas Mr. Edwards indicates six British species, of 

 which two are new, Mr. Saunders does not admit more than four. 



As Mr. Saunders has had the kindness to send me authentic spe- 

 cimens of the species established by Mr. Edwards, I have also looked 

 into this controverted question. In publishing here the result of my 

 researches, I take the opportunity to give a synoptical table of all the 

 European species of the genus. 



I entirely agree with Mr. Saunders that one must not attach a 

 high specific value to the colour of the antennae in this genus. The 

 (J genital styles would be good guides, but they are difficult to examine, 

 and therefore the characters derived from them are hardly available 

 practically ; at the same time I think that there are other characters 

 wdiich one can well employ to distinguish the species ; these characters 

 have been originally partly indicated by C. G. Thomson, and have 

 reference to the structure of the antennae, of the anterior legs, of the 

 mesosternum, &c. 



The pubescence of the upper surface allows us to separate off 

 one section of the species. 



Among the species which are glabrous above, pictas, Schill., is easily distin- 

 guished by the slender antennfe and by the structure of the anterior femora, of which 

 the tooth is central. 



cognatus, Fieb., from South Europe, is easily known by the red-bi-own tint of 

 its general colour, the white base of the coriuni with concolorous punctures, and the 

 ferruginous apical joint of the antenufe. 



brevis, Saund., from Malta, should have the antennae somewhat similar ; unfor- 

 tunately the unique type was lost in the post, so one cannot pronounce any certain 

 opinion upon it, but, to judge from Mr. Saunders' short diagnosis, I think it ought 

 to be referred to cognatus, Fieb.* 



Having thus disposed of the above mentioned species, there only 

 remains a small group of the genus to be examined, which contains 

 just the species about which Messrs. Edwards and Saunders disagree. 

 It is quite certain that the mesosternal tubercles in this genus possess 

 the same real value as in the allied genus, Eremocoris, Eieb. 



We have two species with mesosternal tubercles : the one is the affinis of 



* It is now known that the curious Tritomacera aphanoides of Prof. A. Costa is also only a 

 specimen of this species with monstrovis antennae. I possess a similar abnormal example of 6'. 

 Tkoiusoni, Rout., of which both antennae have only three joints. 



