1911.] 35 



the male sex of the two species, that the student may be advised to 

 determine his specimens to begin with by the colour and puncturation 

 of the elytra. 



B. diota was taken in abundance by Brewer, in 1867, at Wells, 

 Norfolk. A record of this capture is to be found in the Entomolo- 

 gist's Annual for 1868, where, however, the insect is called B. hicornis. 

 The specimens of B. hicornis in the collection at the British Miiseum 

 are, I believe, of this origin, and are B. diota. I have also seen it 

 from Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire (/. K. Taylor). 



Thanks to the kindness of Dr. B<^ving, of the Copenhagen Museum, 

 I have been able to examine a series of Schiodte's specimens taken at 

 Amagerfaelled, in Denmark, in July, 1849, being part of those alluded 

 to by the author in his description (J. c). These are quite the same as 

 our Norfolk examples. I have, however, great doubts whether the 

 insect is not the same as the Russian B. hmnulus, Er. It agrees with 

 Erichson's description, and was originally considered by Schiodte 

 himself to be Erichson's species, and the larva was described by him 

 as that of B. hinmilus [Naturhist. Tidskr. (3), iii, p. 212, pi. xii, figs. 

 16-19]. Subsequently he changed his opinion, and described the 

 Danish insect as B. diota, sp. n. 



By some inexplicable misconception, B. diota stands in the Euro- 

 pean Catalogue as a synonym of B. tricornis — a species with which it 

 has no relation. 



As Schiodte's description is entirely in the Danish language, the 

 following translation of his remarks will be useful in settling the 

 question as to whether B. diota and B. hinmilus are really two species. 

 It has been prepared for me by Dr. Adam B^ving, and may be relied on. 



" In June, 1849, this Bledius was to be found in great numbers 

 on the southern part of the commons at Amager, where the ground 

 was gravelly or clayey, containing salts, and where the vegetation was 

 sparse. When describing the larvae of Bledius in the third vol. of 

 Naturhist. Tidskr., I supposed this species to be identical with Erich- 

 son's B. Jiinnuhis, but remarked that the Danish examples differed 

 from the description, especially by having the frontal prominences 

 Uiore strongly developed. I now treat it as a distinct species, in con- 

 sequence of some information from Dr. G-erstaecker, who has been so 

 good as to compare both forms at the Museum in Berlin. According 

 to this information there is a difference in the sculpture of the elytra. 

 As in this respect B. lunnulus (according to Dr. Gerstaecker) is very 

 like B. hicornis, and not — as Ei'ichson says — with a more scanty punc- 

 tuation." 



