166 [-^^iiy. 



A EEVISION OF THE BEITISH SPECIES OF LIODES, Latebille 

 {ANISOTOMA, Brit. Cat.). 



BY NORMAN H. JOY, M.E.C.S., F.E.S. 



Probably no genus, witli the exception of Trichopteryx, is less 

 understood, and therefore more neglected by British Coleopterists 

 than Liodes, Latr. (Anisotoma, 111.), and it is certainly one of the most 

 difficult on the list. I have been specially interested in it for years, 

 but it was with considerable hesitation that I determined to make a 

 table of the British species and thoroughly reA'iew the status of each. 

 This would have been impossible, but for the generosity of Messrs. 

 Champion, Donisthorpe, Commander Walker, and several others, who 

 have allowed me to retain for months all the specimens which I have 

 required from their collections, so that I have had ample time to 

 examine over three hundred specimens of such a difficult species as 

 L. dubia. Messrs. Champion and Donisthorpe have also kindly 

 helped me in many other ways. I have to thank Dr. Fleischer for 

 identifying many specimens, and it is with great regret that I find I 

 must disagree Math several of his conclusions (in cases where I believe 

 I am in as good a position as he to judge), in spite of his much longer 

 experience of the genus. 



One of the causes of difficulty in the genus is the great variety in 

 size of the individuals of a given species, and a corresponding variation 

 in shape, the smaller specimens generally appearing wider in pro- 

 portion to their length than the larger. Then the old question as to 

 whether a form should be regarded as a species or a variety crops up. 

 But this in many cases must always remain a mere matter of opinion, 

 at any rate until breeding experiments are carried out, and the full 

 life-history of each form is kuowu. Dr. Fleischer regards L. obesa, 

 L. suhglobosa, and several other forms as varieties of L. dubia. Having 

 read his paper on L. dnhia and its varieties (Wieu. Ent. Zeit,. 1906, 

 p. 201) I feel bound to follow him, although I do not consider that 

 this opinion is necessarily final. Two forms could hardly look more 

 distinct than L. dubia v. obesa, and L. dubia v. bicolor, yet all the 

 intermediate forms can be foimd. Dr. Fleischer lays a good deal of 

 stress on the fact that he has taken all the forms in one spot, but I do 

 not think that this is of much importance in a genus like Liodes, 

 where many quite distinct species are often found in company. Then 

 again the fact of the sedeagus being of an identical shape in all the 

 forms under consideration must not be over-rated, as this organ is of 



