i»o5.] 205 



Bradley at Moseley. It is another question whether appendiculata, 

 Mcq., is the same as truncaia, Ztt. Mr. Austen quite correctly points 

 out that Macquart's figure of his species shows antennae quite unlike 

 those of our truucata, but Macquart's drawings are very bad, and his de- 

 scriptions are so short and insufficient that they might be applied to 

 almost any allied species ; and certainly his appendlculata is not 

 diagnosed sufficiently for identification. I should say that neither 

 his drawing in this particular case nor his description prove anything 

 one way or the other, and it is immaterial whether we regard ap- 

 pendiculata as a synonym of truncata, or ignore it altogether. 



With regard to the species which Mr. Austen says he has been 

 calling rudis, Fall., and which he says is like the true rudis,fide B. 

 and B., but smaller, with slightly different fore tarsi, &c., this is 

 without doubt what I have been calling nemorum, Meig. In my 

 experience it is a rare insect, and I have but four females, which w'ere 

 taken at West Hide, Herefordshire, in May, 1899, and I do not 

 remember having seen any others. One ot* these specimens I sent to 

 Prof. Brauer, and he returned it to me confirming my identification 

 of it as Panzeria nemorum, Alg. They answer to Mr. Austen's de- 

 scription of the British Museum specimens, and like them have a 

 reddish scutella. Mr. Austen has perhaps overlooked Brauer's note 

 on p. 532 of the paper he refers to (S. B. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 

 math.-naturw. CI. Bd., cvii, 1898), in which he mentions this species, 

 expressing some doubt whether it is specifically different from rudis, 

 Fall., and remarking that the scutellum is often black, and was so in 

 Meigen's type specimen, and pointing out that the principal char- 

 acter lies in the difference in the shape of the fore tarsi ; nemorum 

 having the first joint much longer than broad, while rudis has it 

 about the same length as width, the other joints being all larger in 

 proportion to width in nemorum than in rudis. 



While on the subject of the genus Erigone I may as well call 

 attention to the fact that this name cannot be continued for the genus, 

 but that we must now use Varichceta, Speiser. Nemoraea was the name 

 by which all those insects now included in Brauer and von Bergen- 

 stamm's section Erigone were known till recently. This name was 

 originally founded by iiobineau Desvoidy for half a dozen of his usual 

 new names, three of which have since been identified with pellucida, 

 Meig. {conjuncta, E.di.) ; Meigen (Sys. Bes. bek. europ. zweifliig. Ins., 

 vol. vii, p. 221), and Macquart (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de. France, 1848, 

 p. 104, et seq.), used the name not only for pellucida, but unite with 



