1901.] 



165 



The male appendages in both forms are l)roa(l and jioiiited, witli a 

 hirge backward-directed tooth on the lower edj^e, the inner margin of 



this tooth being regularly serrate. The tooth is not always visible 

 from the side ; theoretically it is the lower branch of the furcate form 

 of appendage which prevails in the genus. 



Viewing the apex of the abdomen of the (J from above, a small 

 inner process can as a rule be seen, and it is the form of the apex 

 of this process which affords tlie distinctive (diaracter. In concinnus 

 the process is furcate ; in qitndrifhsclntus it is simple and pointed. 



I have already remarked elsewiiere that observations in the field 

 are wanting as to whether the two forms occur together, or, as a rule, 

 separately. 8uch observations wonld be interesting, and I am confi- 

 dent they would, on the whole, tend to confirm the views here 



expressed. 



EXPLANATION OF FIQURES. 



1. Apex of abdonien of (J of H. concinnus, from side. 



2. Tooth of appendage (more enlarged) ; latero-ventral view. 



3. Apex of inner process. 



4. Apex of inner process of //. quadrlfasciatus. 



5. Apex of abdomen of ? U- concinnus, from side. 



13, Blackford Road, Edinburgh : 

 May, 1901. 



HEMEROBIUS LONGIFRONS, Walker, IS NOT TO BE INCLUDRD 

 IN THE EUROPEAN FAUNA. 



BY ROBERT McLACHLAN, F.R.8., &c. 



So long ago as 1867 (Jonrn. Linn. Society of London, Zoology, 

 vol. ix, p. 272) I published a statement to the effect that liemerohius 

 Jonqifrons, "Walker (Cat. Neurop. Brit. Mus., Pt. ii, p. 291), of which 

 the type is from Hudson's Bay, was also found in Europe, and gave 



