1909.] 101 



Champion's British examples, though not«all,* agreed with these, but 

 that mine at any rate were distinct. I then sent one of my Tintagel 

 insects and four of Mr. Champion's to M. Bedel, whose knowledge 

 of Palfearctic Curculionidce is so extensive and accurate. After a 

 careful examination, he writes that my insect is unknown to him, and 

 he has no idea what it can be ; but that all four of Mr. Champion's 

 are micros, Germ. I do not quite gather from what he says that my 

 insect is undescribed, but rather that it is not in a sufficiently fresh 

 condition for him to be able to recognise it. 



Thus, as far as matters have gone at present, it would seem that, 

 whether "Wollaston's insects were rightly determined or not, we have 

 in this country a fourth species, which agrees with what is known on 

 the continent as micros, Germ. Mr. Champion's own captures are 

 from Caterham and Mickleham ; he has also some from Dr. Capron's 

 Collection, presumably from Shiere, and one taken by Mr. T. E. 

 Billups. Mr. W. West has also sent me several (J ^, which he took 

 at Box Hill about thirty years ago on Echium vulgare, and he tells me 

 that Mr. Billups used to take the same insect at Mickleham about 

 the same time, M. Bedel states, however, that micros occurs on 

 Jasione on the continent. But, however this may be. West's speci- 

 mens are certainly identical with Champion's. Whether we have also 

 a fifth species represented by my examples from Tintagel must, 

 I fear, at present remain an open question. 



But, whatever may be the issue as regards these particular 

 specimens, it is pretty clear that M. micros is not to be distinguished 

 by any considerable difference in the depth of the striae. It occurs 

 to me, indeed, that the word ohsoletely in Crotch's description may be 

 intended to refer, not to the strife themselves, but to the punctures in 

 them, and these are certainly not very distinct. M. micros could only 

 be confounded with M. campanulce, as both graminis and plantarum 

 have toothed femora. But it is very mucli smaller than the average 

 of that species, and the ^ is quite destitute of the remarkable arma- 

 ture of the last ventral segment, which is such a marked feature in 

 campanulce. The ? is much more difficult to separate, except on the 

 point of size. But in all the examples I have been able to examine 

 on the under-side, I find that campanulcs has the metasternum deeply 

 excavate, and with a thick tuft of pubescence in the hollow ; and this 

 is not the case in micros. 



The pubescence in this genus seems variable, at least as regards 



* The difference in these is probably sexual. 



