1911.) ^29 



N'otwitlistandiiiL;- the diytiuct facies of tlie two insects when com- 

 pared side by side it does not seem to be very easy to discover definite 

 characters for their identification when apart. On reading Boheman's 

 description of B. (Omias) ].)elhiridvs (Schonherr's Gen. Cure, ii, p. 

 507) one is therefore not much surprised to find that the details are 

 pretty general in character, and seem to apply with nearly equal value 

 to either insect. There are, so far as I can discern, but two exceptions. 

 The first of these is the fiat interstices of the elytra (" interstitiis 

 planis"). In the large (4 mm.) females of No. 1 these spaces are 

 absolutely flat ; they become rounded in the smaller females, and the 

 rounding is obvious in the males. But this feature (the flat inter- 

 stices) cannot be applied to No. 2 at all, at least it cannot in any of 

 the examples which I have seen. It is therefore a character definitely 

 indicating No. 1 as Boheman's insect. The other point is the length 

 of the elytra, which Boheman gives as nearly thrice that of the thorax 

 ("elytra . . . thorace fere ti'iplo longiora"). But so great a 

 length in Barypithes is surely a mistake of the author ? How- 

 ever that may be, Boheman's words are evidently intended to convey 

 the idea of considerably elongated elytra. Such a character is applicable 

 to No. 1, and not to No. 2. Boheman does not say whether he is de- 

 scribing male or female. 



Seidlitz (Die Otiorhynchiden, p. 68) treats of both sexes of B. 

 'pelliicidus, Boh. He describes the male with anterior and intermediate 

 femora considerably thickened ; the thorax as wide as elytra. These 

 featiu'es distinctly indicate No. 2. 



Rye's observations (Ent. Ami., 1869, p. 45) on Dr. Seidlitz's 

 characters are not valid, as Eye is referring them to the insect figured 

 in the frontispiece of the Annual. This is undoubtedly our No. 1, 

 and Seidlitz's insect is our No. 2. 



The excellent figure of B. peUncidus, Boh., referred to above, 

 coincides with No. 1 , and the elytra in that drawing confirm the sug- 

 gestion that Boheman's " thrice longer " is too much. They are drawn 

 about 2^ times longer than thorax,^ — their natural proportions. 



From the foregoing observations it would appear : — Firstly, that 

 No. 1 is 'Boheman s jyellucld'us, and that his descri})tion apparently 

 comprises the male and female indiscriminately ; secondly, that No. 2 

 is the B. i)ellucidus. Boh., of Seidlitz ; thirdly, that the insects are 

 abundantly distinct, although both are known by the one designation 

 of pellucid u>^, Boh. No. 1, having prior claim to this title, I propose, 

 in view of the facts of the case, to name No. 2 duplicahi-f. 



The following table will pcH'haps be useful for separating our 



