CURRENT NOTES. 165 



gratnlated on his present study. The plates appear to us to be 

 excellent. 



In order to continiie his experiments on hybrid Malacosomas, Mr. 

 Bacot is sadly in need of ova, larvas, pupte or fertile females of 

 Malanisdinn franconica. The Editor will be glad to give a fair price 

 for such, and trusts that some one of our Continental readers will be 

 able to oblige him with the species. 



As a point of showing how things get altered in one's memory 

 as time goes on, we would point out that Mr. Day, in his new IMt of 

 Lepidoptera found in C/iCKhire, &c., p. 11, notes of thjles eiiphorbiae : 

 "■ There are no recent records. The following extract is from Ellis's 

 List, p. 14 — ' A specimen now in the cabinet of Mr. C. G. Gregson, 

 captured in an outhouse at Buxton, nr. Birkenhead, by Mr. Morgan ; 

 two larvfE found on Euphorbia paralias, between Little Brighton and 

 Hightown, by C. G. Gregson.' " Gregson was undoubtedly a good 

 lepidopterist, but his desire to go one better than all his contemporaries 

 led him to make many curious and contradictory statements about 

 things that he did take and others that he thought he took. His first 

 record regarding these larvfe (XonL, p. ii298) was that he took " a fullfed 

 larva " at Eormby "on grass," and in response to a jog by the Editor, he 

 later added that thegrass was " near EupJtorbia ;" by the time that Ellis's 

 list was printed "two "had been found "on Euphorbia," and one suspects 

 that, like the larvae of Celerio i/allii that were found in 1889 and proved 

 to be young Sesia sttilataru)ii larvae, those of H. cuphorbiae were probably 

 those of Tlieretra porcellus or Eumorpha elpenor, which Gregson hoped 

 would prove to be tl. euphorbiae in the days before he knew "one from 

 t'other or t'other from which," and when, possibly, someone having 

 recorded a recent capture of the species, it was necessary to be up-to- 

 date. 



Mr. G. C. Champion being responsible for the list of coleoptera in 

 the Victorian history of the county of Surrey, this list is, as was to 

 be expected, a very long, complete and accurate one. He points out 

 that Surrey, perhaps, has been more worked for coleoptera than most 

 other counties. He groups the localities under four heads : — (1) The 

 line of the North Downs between Farnham and Lim.psfield ; (2) north 

 of the North Downs ; (3) south of the North Downs ; (1) South 

 London and the various towns that have produced cosmopolitan 

 species. He states that Mr. John Linell's Eeigate lists of coleoptera, 

 and a MS. list of the coleoptera of Chiddingfold, lent by Mr. Horace 

 Donisthorpe, have been of great service to him in compiling this list. 

 The species which have only been recorded from Surrey in this country 

 are marked with an -•'. These are ten in number, viz., Homalota rufo- 

 testacea, Kr. (Mickleham) ; H. hyporfaea, Rey. (Caterham) ; Borboro- 

 pora kraatzi, Fuss. (Mickleham) ; Aci/lophorus r/labricollis, Boisd. 

 (Barnes Common, Merton, and Richmond) ; Quedius kraatzi, Bris. 

 (Chiddingfold); Cnrtiraria obacura, Bris. (Richmond Park and Esher) ; 

 Micraiube abirtis, Pk. (Mickleham and Guildford) ; Hi/pophloeus linearis, 

 F. (Oxshott and Woking) ; Salpin/ius mutilatus, Beck. (Caterham, 

 ■Gomshall and Mickleham) ; ('rijpliabu f/ranulatus, Ratz. (Surbiton). 

 We have added the localities to these species, as there are unfor- 

 tunately no notes or localities to any of the species in the list, but 

 this, we believe, as before pointed out when reviewing the coleoptera 

 of the Victorian history of Cumberland (Hnt. liecor-i, 1902, p. 185), 



