lyir.] 31 



one fouml in Ireland by Mr. Tonilin. Two females sent by the late 

 C. J. Thomson to Mr. Champion are probably this species, but they are 

 in bad condition, having been transfixed by a large pin. The only 

 doubt I have as to the distinctness of nigritar^is arises from the speci- 

 men I have alluded to above under No. 3 ; but, as I have said. I have 

 little doubt that will prove to be really of another species. 



The insect on which nlgritarsls was first introduced as a British 

 species is still in the Crotch collection at Cambridge. I anticipate that 

 it will prove to be yet another species. It went to M. H. Brisout de 

 Barneville, and bears still his label " lutulentus varietas." I describe it 



briefly below. 



6. — A. riidis, sp.n. 



Major, rohusfus, fusro-griseu sq^uimosus, elytris puiictis duobus albidis ; 

 antcnnis pedibusque nigris, illo.rum basi iibiisque testaceis ; prothoracc angusto, 

 fortitcr rugoso-sculpturato. Long, (absque rostra) 8f mm. 



A. nigritarsis has a corresponding length of about 8 mm., so that 

 the difference in size is considerable. The colour is less dark, and the 

 sculpture of the thoi-ax is remarkably coarse. 



The thorax has a fine channel on the middle, and this is continuous 

 w^ith a depression on the vertex. The constriction of the sides of the 

 thorax near the front is very strong. The elytra are broad, shaped 

 more like those of B. coUignensis than those of nigritarsis, and the 

 callosity before the apex is not vei'y conspicuous ; the striation is fine. 



The resemblance to A. coUignensis is so great that the two were 

 placed together in the Ci'otch collection as B. " nigritarsis," but inde- 

 pendently of the darker antennae and tarsi, A. rudis has a broader and 

 more strongly lobed third tarsal segment. 



The sex of the individual is uncertain, and there is no indication 



of its source. 



Hydronomns Aiictt. 



It would scarcely be necessary to allude to this genus were it not 

 that it has i-ecently beennierged in Bagnns. This is a complete mistake. 

 Hydronomns has not been connected with Bayous proper since the far 

 distant epoch when the differentiation of the Lixidae from the other 

 Curcnlionidae was established. It differs also from the other genera 

 of Psendobogoini, not only by the unimpressed prosternum, but also 

 by the scrobes, which are less definite and directed more downwards. 

 The aedeagus is quite that of the other Fsendohagoini. 



I hope to deal with the true Bagolni in a sul>se(pient paper. May 

 I add that I shall be very much obliged to anyone who will let me see 



