124 l^-^^"®' 



At present I am acquainted with seven tbat I can distinguish quite 

 satisfactorily, viz., (1) prolifericoniis ; (2) sp. nov.=^auriculafus, Edw. ; 

 (S) r/riscus ; (4) luridus ; (5) al(jiricus ; (6) nitidulus ; (7) the old 

 auriculatus called ernesti by Ganglbauer. I think it not impossible 

 tbat we may have one or two more in this country. 'J he literature is 

 extremely difficult, and if I can succeed in throwing any light on the 

 synonymy it is my intention to publish a contribution to the knowledge 

 of the genus. Meanwhile, 1 shall be glad to examine collections, nnd 

 shall be thankful for information. 



Brockenhurst : 



May 6th, 1909. 



APHODIUS NIGER, Panz., IN ENGLAND. 

 BY D. SHARP, M.A., F.E.S. 



Aphodius niger was formerly in the British Catalogue of Coleop- 



tera, but it was rejected by Fowler, and in the Beare and Donisthorpe 



Catalogue it is placed among the doubtful species. I have little 



doubt that it is a native of Britain, but as the whole matter is a 



complicated and difficult one 1 may be excused I hope for dealing 



with it at length. A. niger was proposed as ScarabcBUS niger, by 



Panzer in 1797. The figure he gives is a very bad and quite worthless 



one, so that subsequent authors differed in iheir determinations of it 



and it was not till Erichson treated of the question in 1848 (Ins. 



Deutschl , iii, p. 833), that the species became at all recognisable. 



Erichson stated that A. niger was a good species closely allied to 



A. plagiiitus, and that it was confounded by Coleopterists with the 



uuicolorous variety of A. plagiatus. The evidence that induced 



Erichson to treat his insect as the A. niger of Panzer is meagre and 



unsatisfactory, it is indeed based solely on the locality where Panzer's 



specimen was obtained {i. e. Brunswick). 1 do not think this part of 



the matter should be re-considered, as Erichson's identification has 



been accepted for many years, and has now as strong a claim to our 



acceptance as any conventional point of the kind can have. Turning 



to the points by which Erichson distinguished the species from 



A. plagiatus var. concolor, we find some misunderstandings that 



are greatly to be regretted. The characters given by Erichson may 



be stated as (1) greater size, (2) the head more closely punctate, 



with the cheeks a little less projecting, (3) the large punctures of the 



thorax smaller, (4) the metasternum less punctate in the middle and 



in the male not hairy, (5) " the hind feet with the first joint long, as 



