226 [October, 



Fig. 6. — Forficula anricularia, Liuu., (^ . 



The common earwig is familiar to everybody. The figure shows 

 the form forcipata, Steph., which is commonest in mountain districts 

 and islands. 



Fig. 7. — Forficida auricnlaria, Linn. ? ? . 



This figure shows the normal forceps of the female, Imt the 

 specimen is abnormal in the absence of wings. It is one of two 

 examples taken by me at Compton Bay, Isle of Wight, and discussed 

 in the Ent. Mo. Mag. (2) xviii, p. 173 (1907). It should be noticed 

 that the elytra are somewhat shortened, and that the pronotum is a 

 little broader than in the ordinary male figured. This specimen is 

 practically indistinguishable from the female of F. deci2)iens, Gene, a 

 common South European insect, and from the female of F. silana, 

 Costa, a rare Italian species. I spent a long time hunting in vain for 

 the male, without which it is impossible to settle the question of its 

 identity. A new earwig is not often added to our list, so I hope that 

 all Coleopterists and Hemipterists will keep a good look-out for what 

 appears to be a common earwig with abbreviated wings, and when 

 they find one, send it to me, so that this interesting puzzle may be 

 cleared up. 



Figs. 8, 8a. — Forficula lesnei, Finot, ^ ; fig. 8a, forceps of ? . 



This earwig has been proved to be fairly common and widely 

 spread in the southern covmties, and is foimd as far north as Berk- 

 shire ; it probably occurs also in Ireland. On the Continent, F. lesnei 

 inhabits north-western France and the north-western corner of Spain. 

 It may be taken, often in numbers, by sweeping beds of nettles 

 about dusk. 



Figs. 9, 9a. — Apterygida alhipennis, Meg., (^ ; fig. 9a, forceps of $ . 



This common Central European species is now known to be 

 numerous in certain localities in Kent ; it appears to prefer the 

 neighbourhood of hop-gardens. A. alhipennis is probably widely 

 spread, since it is recorded from Norfolk. The female is practically 

 indistinguishable from that of F. lesnei. It has the pronotum a trifle 

 broader and squarer than in F. lesnei, instead of being very gently 

 widened posteriorly, and somewhat rounded posteriorly, as in the last 

 named insect. 



Dover: August, 1911. 



