REMARKS ON MR. NEWBERy's nXAL ARTICLE. 21 



therefore, prepared the following- remarks in reference to the species 

 with which 'Sir. Newbery deals. 



Anchoincmis jiKt'llits, Dj. — Canon Fowler certainly says that /;/(r/^(.s 

 is probably only a var. of tliorci/i, ])j., but Dawson in his (irdile/iluii/a 

 Jhitannira treats them as distinct, and we are by no means 

 convinced that iineUns is merely a variety ; one does not take the two 

 together as a rule, and they appear to have structural differences as 

 marked as many other insects which are readily admitted to be specific 

 in their differences. 



Inniibiiliinii valloinitn, Kiist. — The reason why we adopted callnsKiii, 

 Kust., 1847, in place of latemle, Dj,, 1H31, was that calldstini was the 

 name adopted by Dawson when recording the species, and we 

 considered it best to adhere to that name in the catalogue when 

 reintroducing it. 



Ileiiihidiiiiii ri/xiritiiii, 01. — It was pointed out by Canon Fowler 

 {l':iit. Mil. Mitij.. vol. iv., 1H98, p. 2ol), when Mr. Newbery's original 

 note was published, that the introduction of the specific name, 

 litnidatidii, Four., would probably lead to confusion with liiiiatiiin, 

 Duft., and tor this reason we preferred to retain the name of lijiariiiiu, 

 01. 



Uelocliares />iiitctati(s, Sharp. — As regards the two species of 

 Helochares, Dr. Sharp, who introduced /nmrtatiis (see }\nt. Mo. Ma;/., 

 vol. iv., p. 241), gives very clearly the specific differences, and, 

 undoubtedly, he is the authority in this country on water-beetles, and, 

 therefore, we did not feel justified in reducing jiKitrtatiia to a mere 

 variety of licidits, Forst. ; further, we are by no means convinced that 

 it is a variety. 



LaccobiKs siiniatiis, Mots. — According to ih^ l-'.iniqii'an ( 'atalni/Kc, 

 p. 08, Mr. Newbery appears to be correct in his synonymy with regard 

 to the two species, l.arrdhiiis siimiitiis, and L. ni'iirirrjis, Th., but as the 

 matter appeared to l)e uncertain, we decided to follow Canon Fowler 

 in his Jjriti.s/i Ldlcoidi'ia. 



Hoiiialota rieiiiita, Rye. — The same remarks apply to the (juestion 

 of the priority of Jliniudota ocniita, Kye, and islaiulica, Kr. Dr. Sharp, 

 in his " Monograph on the genus Honudnta,'" retains the name 

 i'lriiiita, Rye. 



MeUi/et/ii's iiitiiaiintis. Er. — In reference to Miliiiit/ux i/onatiiiiis, 

 Kr., we do not understand Mr. Newbery's remark that this sliould be 

 raised to a species ; it is a species in our catalogue. 



Ii/ii/nc/iiti's sirici'iis, lirit. tat. — The fact that Jl/iiiiu/iitfx .■icriceiis, 

 lirit. (.'at., is Jllii/ucliitcs Ditlit/ialiniciis, Steph., was pointed out Ijy 

 Mr. Champion {Knt. Ma. Mat/., 1904, p. 79), after the appearance of 

 our catalogue ; we were, therefore, not able to make tlie alteration ; it 

 will have to l)e made, of course, in any further edition. 



Jicnihidiitiii atidreae, F. — Before deciding that Jlnnliiiliion aiii/li- 

 tuninii, Sharp, was synonymous with //. aiitlrrac, F., we consulted the 

 original description, and came to the conclusion that it was, and 

 though, in this particular instance, Mr. Newbery wishes to follow the 

 Hiiropfan ('atabniuc, he does not give any reason for doing so, and in 

 other cases he is quite ready to depart from it. 



lli/biii.f xKhai'iti'iiK, Kr. — As regards lli/hiim snhaciirns, we fail to see 

 the point of Mr. Newbery's coiuments : the insect was insei-ted in our 

 catalogue because we liad undoubted evidence of Mr. Thouless' 

 captures. 



