32 [February. 



Fowler (1890), Eey (1893), Schilsky (1905), and the European Catalof^ue 

 (1906) ; but as a synonym of li. rujipes Hbst. {S) by Champion (1901), Beare 

 and Donisthorpe (1904), Fowler and Uonisthorpe (1913), and as a variety by 

 Junck (1913). 



As this appeared to me to be rather curious, I have looked up all the 

 original descriptions. 



Ilerbst (1783), in defining ;'w^y)e.?, writes : "die drei ersten Gelenke der 

 Fiihlerhiirner sind rost furbig, eben diese Farbe hahen auch die zwei ersten 

 Paar Fiisse." We thus see that the type has only the first three joints of the 

 antennae, and the front and middle pairs of legs, red ; I have never seen a 

 specimen like this, and should think it is very rare. 



Illiger (1794) describes hdeicornis with " Antennis luteis. Pedes quatuor 

 antici lutei. Bini postici nigri." If, as seems probable, this should be regarded 

 as a form o?niJipes Hbst., we should call it Bruchus rnfipes Hbst. ab. hdeicornis 

 Illig. 



Marsham (1802) describes sejnijuirius — " antennarum basi pedibusque 

 anticis testaceis." This is given incorrectly by Junck as a synonym of ab. 

 luteicornis 111. As Marsham only says the base of the antennae is testaceous 

 (but does not say how many joints) it must be regarded as a synonym of riifipes 

 Hbst. 



Boheman (1833) in his description of Jinbilus gives " Antennae articulis 

 quinque baseos rufo-testaceis, sequentibus atris. Pedes quatuor anteriores 

 rufo-testacei, femoribus anticis a basi versus medium, intermediis fere ad 

 apicem nigris ; postici nigri, tarsi fusco-ferrugineis." 



Briichus riifipes Hbst. ab. nubiluslioh. therefore has the first five joints of 

 the antennae and the two front pairs of legs red, the anterior femora being 

 half black, and the intermediate femora almost entirely so ; the posterior legs 

 are black with blackish red tarsi. 



Motschulsky (1854) describes Bruchus ervi as " der graue Linsenkafer," and 

 says : " Er kommt in der gewohnlichen kleinen Feldlinse [Erviim lens) vor."' 

 Junck gives this as a synonym of rujipes Hbst. I had considerable difficulty 

 in finding the paper in question, as it w^as not to be found in any of the libraries 

 of the scientific societies ; but I eventually ran it to earth in the reading room 

 of the British Museum. Motschulsky 's de&^cription might well do for Bruchus 

 lentis Boh.; he calls it the gray Lentil-Beetle; and Ervum lens { = Lens 

 esculeyita), the Lentil, which certainly does not grow in Britain. I believe this 

 should be regarded as a synonym of B. lentis. 



Baudi (1886) says " riifipes Ilerbst = mibila Bohm.,'' and gives a 

 description which exactly agrees with the latter. He also mentions a number 

 of varieties, but without giving any names to them. B. ruf.pes Baudi is 

 therefore a synonym of B. rujipes Hbst. ab. nuhilus Boh. 



Ptey (1898), under " Bruchus nifipes Hbst. {nuhilus Boh.)," describes 

 several aberrations : " apicatus P., a le dernier article des antennes roux ; le 

 minor P., est tres petit: lejavicornis P., a les antennes entieremeut testacees.'' 



The last mentioned aberration is a synonym of B. rujipes ab. luteicornis 111. 

 (if nifipes and luteicornis are to be considered as forms of the same species) 

 and is so treated by Junck. 



