1911.] 167 



a comparatively simple structure in this genus. I find tliat in Hetero- 

 thops binotata and H. jjrcvvia, which are without question abundantly 

 distinct species, the aedeagus is of precisely the same structiu-e, and I 

 expect there are many such instances. In the British list there is no 

 parallel instance of such great variation of form in one species as in 

 L. dnhia, and it is not approached in any other members of the same 

 genus. 



Of the specimens which I submitted to Dr. Fleischer for identifi- 

 cation he returned four as L. brunnea, Sturm. I had regarded these 

 four as belonging to two species — a pair of each — and I can now 

 definitely state that this is the case, as, besides several marked 

 distinctions between thein, which I pointed out to Dr. Fleischer when 

 sending them to him, I now find that there is a difference in the 

 structure of the aedeagus. One of these is no doubt the true 

 L. brunnea, the original description of which is of little help, as it 

 might apply to many species of Liodes. I think we shall be quite 

 justified in regarding the specimens recorded by Eye under this name 

 (Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. ix, p. 135) as rightly identified, at any rate he 

 shows them to be the L. hnmnea of Erichson. Mr. Champion has 

 lent me one of these specimens, which was taken by Lawson at Scar- 

 borough. If we regard this as settled, the identification of the second 

 species is not diflicult. It matches the type of L. aJgirica, Eye, which 

 is in Mr. Champion's possession. I think it is probably not the 

 species which is known on the Continent as L. alcjirica, although 

 Dr. Fleischer saw Eye's type some years ago. Mr. Donisthorpe's 

 specimen (Ent. Eec. xxiii, p. 44) taken at Oxford last year, which was 

 named L. algirica by Dr. Fleischer, is a small L. dubia. 



I have the pleasure of adding another species, not only to the 

 British list, but also to science, under the name L. stenocoryiihe. I 

 have described it from a pair taken by Mr. W. E. Sharp last year at 

 Forres, Inverness-shire. It is a most striking insect, related to both 

 L. trieplcei and L. curta, but is abundantly distinct. 



Twenty-five species have been included in the following table, one 

 more than the total in Messrs. Beare and Donisthorpe's catalogue. 

 Besides L. algirica and L. stenocorijplie, L. lucens and L. fiavicornis 

 have been added since the catalogue was published. I have deleted 

 L. obesa and L. siviilata. L. obesa, as explained above, is considered 

 a variety of L. dubia. L. davidiana must also be regarded as a 

 variety of the same species, far removed from L. ohc'^a. 



I discuss below my reasons for considering L. similata as a 



o 2 



