GNATHONCUS NIDICOLA, SP. NOV. 135 



distinction of any worth. I can only remind them that beetles are 

 living creatures, and must be studied as such, and that it is both 

 unscientific and unprofitable to study them only as one would stamps, 

 coins, or old china. 



Mr. W. E. Sharp raises the question (Ent. Rec, xviii., p. 319), 

 whether a difference in habitat necessarily means a difference in habits. 

 In a case like this I certainly think it does. The habitats of both 

 these species are very perishable, and, therefore, the beetles would often 

 want to move from old quarters to search for new ones. It is in this search 

 for new quarters that the essential difference in habits comes in, a 

 difference which, as I have pointed out before, must mean an actual 

 structural difference in the central nervous system. Imagine, for 

 instance, an individual of G. nidicola just hatched from an old 

 deserted starlings' nest. The nest is no longer fit for its home, so it 

 sets off in search of another. In the course of its flight it may very 

 likely pass close by dead and putrid carcases in which there are probably 

 specimens of G. rotundatus feeding and mating, yet these do not attract 

 it. Helped by some sense, of which we have no conception, it 

 eventually arrives at a small obscure hole in an old tree, where it at 

 once finds the object of its search, the starlings' nest therein. This is 

 no mere fanciful picture. It is the only way we can account for the 

 fact that we do not find G. nidicola in carrion nor G. rotundatus in 

 birds' nests. But to return to the structural differences between the 

 two species. I have shown specimens to several distinguished coleop- 

 terists and they have, with one exception only, agreed with me that 

 G. nidicola is an abundantly distinct species. As this one exception 

 happens to be Mr. Lewis, the authority on the Histcridae, I feel I 

 must answer his criticisms. Some months ago he kindly examined 

 some specimens of both species I sent him, but seems to have been at 

 once prejudiced against the two forms being distinct by finding that 

 the sterna were of the same shape. After this apparently nothing else 

 could be of any importance. Having examined more specimens of 

 both species and discovered the difference in habitat, I felt so convinced 

 that they must be distinct, that I sent them again to Mr. Lewis, 

 pointing out carefully the specific characters. I was surprised to hear 

 from him that he was unable to appreciate that there were two forms 

 of punctuation of the elytra, simply stating that the punctuation often 

 varied in the Histeridae. He also suggested that some of the specimens 

 had somewhat worn front tibiae. I am quite ready to agree with him 

 on this point, as some of the specimens of G . rotundatv* had worn 

 teeth, probably from scratching in the hard earth under carcases, etc., 

 but these blunt broad teeth are very different from the small sharp 

 teeth of G. nidicola, for I need hardly point out to Mr. Lewis that the 

 teeth are worn blunt, not sharp '. 



Since writing the above, Mr. Champion has kindly sent me his 

 series of G. rotundatus. There were twenty-six specimens, of which 

 seven had the anterior tibiae so much tucked in under them that I was 

 unable to examine them. The remainder I examined in the following 

 way : Having placed them in a row I looked at the apex of the elytra 

 only in each specimen, and thus divided them into the two species. I 

 then examined the front tibia to confirm this identification. I found 

 one specimen only which I had regarded (but with some doubt) as 

 belonging to H. nidicola, which obviously had the front tibiae of H. 



