$ at tlie roots of the numerous plants of Glauciitm Jlavum growing 

 among AmmopliiJa {JPsamma') arundinacea on the blowing-sand at 

 Benacre on the Suffolk coast. The insect was extremely active, though 

 its wings are only in the same rudimentary condition as Marshall's more 

 macropterous example, where they do not extend to the hind coxae ; 

 hence I think for his " alae ahdomine multo breviores " we ought to read 

 thorace. An examination of the entire antennal, capital, and abdominal 

 structure readil}^ shows it to be a Stenomacrus, very closely allied to 

 S. ci/hicfps Thorns., which has occuiTed to me on the coast, both of 

 Suffolk and West Ireland (as well as inland), like which the head is 

 posteriorly broad, e3^es prominent, metathorax elongate, and the thyridii 

 peculiarly large. 



If it proves to be more than a brachypterous form of that species, 

 this addition to our fauna must be placed next it. No. 910 a in Cat. Brit. 



7. Euryproctus huccatus Holmgr. 



Ilesoleius buccatus Holmgr., Sv. Ak. Handl. 1855, p. 1-15, 6 ? . 



Si/ndipnus {Hypamhiys) huccatus Thoms., Opusc. Ent. xix, 1895, 

 p. 2008. 



Mesohius buccatus Strobl, Mitt. Nat. Ver. Steiermark, xxxix, 1902, 

 p. 27, J . 



Hypamhlys huccatus Schm., Opusc. Ichn. xxxv, 1913, p. 2790, S 2 • 



A rare s])ecies, occurring in Styria, Central and Southern Sweden ; 

 Johnson took a female during May in Armagh. In our Catalogue it 

 comes next to E. alhopictus, No. 108G a. 



8. Ganidiella trocliantella Thoms. 



Thoms. (Ichn. Brit, v, p, 127).* 



The male of this uncommon species is hitherto undescribed ; it 

 differs from the 5 i" nothing but having the posterior tibiae entirely 

 dull stramineous at their centre, and not only externally so. I have seen 

 it from Southwell, in Nottingham, taken on August 15th, 1918. 



* I liave at length succeeded in clearing up the mystery of that " Var. <J," of Spifohn (which 

 genua, I fear, must fall thus: — Deuterospino/ia, Dalla Torre, Cat. Hym. 19Jl, p. HI 6 = Spinal id Fcirst. 

 Ve.h. p. Rheiiil. xxv, 1868, p. IT-i ; nee Dahl, ISoi^Allocota Roman, Zool. Bidr. fr. Uppsala, i, 1912, 

 p. 2So; nee Fiirst.) /iiacuHpeiinis desoribed in Ichn. Brit, ii, p. 114. There I exiiressed the probability 

 of it being a hyperpai'asitie Ophionid mimic, which is certainly correct, since I have been enabled 

 to determine it definitely to be Creriiasttis ( = Creniastidea Viereek, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xliii, 

 lnl2,.p. oal^Pauroleiis Cameron, Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soo. xvii, 19(16, p. :i82j oculatus Szepli- 

 geti. Term. Fuz. xxiii, 19uO, p. 21, (J, with which C. ca k datus Szdyl., ?.e. p. 22, $, has been correctly 

 synonymisedby Sehm., Opusc. Ichn. ISUO, p. 2031. It is interesting to note that the two <J (J described 

 by me on May VHh, • ViuO. bred from Psi/che ienella Spey., Tar. zermat/ensis, were taken at Locarno, since 

 Saepligeti found both his sexes in Hungarj'.and the s|<ecies has not been noticed la^er. Dr. Chapman 

 alsohadsent, on June2.nd, LSii9, two § ( and one d from the same host and v?) .ocality. 



