ox SOMK DOUBTFUL Ol; VEKV KAKE liKlTISll COLEOPTKKA. 19 



Laccobias siniiatus, Mots., is not synonymous with iiiiiricqi.s, Th., 

 and has not occurred in Britain. The latter name should stand. 



Iloiiialnta eremita, Rye {lHGl) = isla)idica, Kr. (1857). 



Meliin'thrs i/anotiitiis, Er., should be raised to a species. The 

 characters are quite different from those of lii;iiibris, Er. (Reitt., Iter. 

 Mel., p. 110). 



It/ii/nc/iitrs sericeim of Ihit. ( 'at-^op/tt/iabiuciai, Steph., li scrici'tis, 

 Hbst., is not British {Kiit. Mn. Mai/., vol. xl., p. 79). 



The followin^i;- species are noteworthy from their extreme rarity, 

 or for some other reason call for special remark. 



IJniibidiiiiii anilirac, F. = 11. annUcaninii, Sharp, according to Messrs. 

 Beare and Donisthorpe. In the 1891 Kuropean Catalog iw they are 

 not synonymous, aniilicaniiiii = Xiiv. biialei, Desb. J>. fniniratuin, 

 Sturm., is also considered a variety of amlrear, F. 



llifbiuK subaciu'HK, Er., has been considered rather a doubtful British 

 insect. I have seen a series taken by ]Mr. Thouless, in Norfolk, which 

 are no doubt subaeucus, the abdominal male characters are quite 

 different from those of fencstratiis, F. 



XaiitfioliiiKs ilistcms, Kr. The specimens in British collections, 

 under this name, are most probably cribriin'iinis, Fauv. 



Tr<);i(>/>/di)ri(s sahtilis, Er., is extremely doubtful as British. There 

 appears to be no trustworthy record. 



lilciliua feworalis, Gyll., has recently been reinstated as British by 

 Dr. Norman H. Joy {Knt. Mo. Mai/., vol. xl., p. 287). The determina- 

 tion has since been confirmed by M. Fauvel. 



Sc!/iiniuN liviihis, Bold, is a very doubtful species, and should be 

 placed in the separate list. 



MeU(ietlu's bideutatiis, Bris., appears to have no British representa- 

 tive, and should be placed in the doubtful list. 



(nitiraria nbsnira, Bris., is another doubtful British species. It is 

 extremely rare on the continent. 



Silraiiiis biih'iitatiis, F. — It is very desirable to have further 

 confirmation of this insect as Ik-itish. It is easily confused with its 

 allies. 



At/i<iiis sitbi'iisriis, ^liill . appears only to have been taken m the 

 Orkney and Shetland Islands. I can find no more recent record than 

 1867. The specimen from Llangollen {Hrit. Col., vol. iv., p. 102), 

 seems to have been an error. 



J-Jl/lierado7itiata,Fk.,\srepveseuted in the Power collection by a 

 rabl)ed male of //. sii!<j>iri(}sa, Hbst. This mistake is not uncommon 

 in foreign collections. Prof. Beare has recently recorded the capture 

 of a specimen near Edinburgh {h'nt. Mo. yia<i., vol. xxxvii., p. 2). 



'riiii/niirtit'a Hcirr/iosKs, Gyll. — Most of the localities given by 

 I- 'owler apply to T. iinris, Pk. The examples in the Power collection 

 are certainly wrongly named. The insect, if British, must be 

 exceedingly rare. 



I)nri/tii)inis a/linix, Pk., a very doubtful native, I cannot find a 

 trustworthy record. 



Antlion(iiini!i consjimms, J)esb., appears to be d(iiil)tfuliy distinct 

 from its allies. 



Antliiininniis britannua. Desb. — 1 cannot satisfactorily refer the 

 specimen in the Power collection to any of the other British species. 



lUiijnndiis ;inuiUn, Rosen. — The only recent record is that of 



