EVOLUTION OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF MYRMECOPHILOUS COLEOPTERA. 51 



Entomolof/ist's Weekly Intelli;/cncer (1856-Gl) ; The Kntomolof/ht's 

 MontJtli/ Magazine, which started in 1864 ; and Tlte Entownloi/ist's 

 Record, in 1890, must all be diligently searched by the student who 

 would nicake himself master of his subject and of the advance of ento- 

 mological knowledge in this country during the past fifty years. The 

 Ent. Mo. Mai/, and the Ent. Record in particular are full of articles of 

 the highest scientific value, apart altogether from the information they 

 contain on the distribution and times of occurrence of our native species, 

 information invaluable to those Avorking at these aspects of the subject. 

 Three valuable local lists I must say a few Avords about, viz., " The 

 Coleoptera of Norfolk," by James Edwards [Tranii. Xorfolk and Norin'ch 

 Xat. Soc, vol. v., 1893) ; " The Coleoptera of Suflblk," by C. Morley 

 (Plymouth, 1879) ; and " The Coleoptera of the Rochester District," 

 by J. J. Walker {The Rochester Naturalist, July 1897— July 1900). 

 These lists are not mere columns of names, but are full of information 

 as to habits, localities, times of appearance, &c., and, in fact, contain 

 just those facts which make them indispensable to every worker. 

 Lastly, I must mention the Transactions of the Entomolofiical Societi/ of 

 London, where such epoch-making memoirs as Dr. Sharp's Rerisiou of 

 the British Species of Honudota first saw the light, and many another 

 besides. 



Many memoirs such as Dr. Sharp's " Aquatic Carnivorous 

 Coleoptera " [Trans. R.S. Dublin, 1882) not dealing specially with our 

 British coleoptera must be studied by anyone who is anxious, as all 

 should be, to see the place our limited fauna holds in the greater 

 European one. 



Evolution of our knowledge of Myrmecophilous Coleoptera. 



By HORACE St. J. K. DONISTHOEPE, F.Z.S., F.E.S. 

 The first reference which I can find to this interesting subject was 

 made by Caspar von Schwenkfeld, of Leignitz, in 1603, when he 

 referred^ to a gold beetle in ants' nests under the name of " Cantharis 

 formicaria latior," and described it as hatching from a white worm in 

 ants' nests. The reference is undoubtedly to Cetonia. In 1687, Lockner 

 gives a further account- of Cetunia in ants' nests, describing and 

 figuring the larva, pupa, and pupa-case, Avhilst, in 17*49, Roesel von 

 Rosenhof mentions'' the same species, beautifully figuring the beetle 

 in all its stages. De Geer^ in 1778, also calls attention to the presence 

 of the larvffi of Cetonia in ant-hills, and remarks that they are 

 tolerated by the ants. So much for the records previous to the present 

 century. In 1817, Sahlberg described' Lomecliusa struwosa as occurring 

 with Eorwica rubra { = E. saniiui)iec(), and, in 1818, Miiller gives a very 

 good account'' of the habits of the genus L'lariijer, calling attention to the 

 fact that the beetles secrete a SAveet juice, eagerly de\'0ured by the ants, 



1 Theriotropheuin Silesiae in quo animalum, hoc at quadrupedum, reptiluni, 

 avium, pisceum, insectorum natura, vis et usus sex libri.'s perstriiuiuntur, Lignicii, 

 1603, Lib. iv., p. 521. 



'■^ Kphem. Ac. Nat. Curios, 1G87, Decur. ii., An. vi., Observ. ccxv., pp. 436-441. 



"• TJer monatlich herauscfcqchencn Insektenhelustiqunrj, Zweiter Theil, N. ii., 

 pp. 11-16. 1749. 



^ Ahhandlungen zur GescJiichte der Jnsekten, Niirnberg, 1778, Bd. iv., p. 116. 



^ Insecta Fennica, disscrtatiomJ)us acadcmicia anni^, 1817, p. 404. 



e Germafs Ma(j. Ent., in., 1818, pp. 69-112. 



