112 [May. 



The original capture of Hydrochvs nitidicollis in Britain. — Mr. A. Vineent- 

 Mitchell's correction (a7itea p. 84) of his previous statement on the capture of 

 this beetle, although actually and literally correct, would make it appear that 

 I alone was responsible for its discovery in Britain and that Mr. Keys had 

 nothing to do with the matter. I have always regarded it as a joint capture, 

 and recorded it as such at the time. It is therefore as well to give an account 

 of the circvunstances under which the insect was taken. On April 13th, 1906, 

 I went with Keys to Yelverton, as he had promised to shoAv me how to find 

 Gnypeta coerulea in the river Meavy. His method was to gather partly-submerged 

 moss from stones and boulders in the river, and vering it out over a sheet. He 

 collected a lot of the moss and thi-ew it on to the sheet, and I examined it for 

 the beetles. When doing so I detected a " Hydrochus, which I did not recog- 

 nise. Mr. Keys told me he had never taken a species of the genus there before, 

 and we eventually took four specimens." I identified the species when I got 

 home, and brovight it forward as British [Ent. Record, Vol. XVIII, p. 133 

 (1906) ; Col. Brit. Isles, Vol. VI, p. 34) (1913)]. It will thus be seen that 

 though I did actually take the first British specimen, picking it ixp and bottling 

 it, but had it not been for Keys I shoiild probably never have gone to this 

 locality at all. I have always considei'ed such discoveries as joint captures ; 

 more especially when the locality is known to one of the collectors, although 

 he may not have actually detected and bottled the first specimen. — Horace 

 DoNisTHORPE, 19, Hazlewell Road, Putney : Aiml 16th, 1917. 



Cumberland Hemiptera-Heteroptera. — During 1916, the weather conditions 

 were frequently unfavourable for oiitdoor work, and the. time available for 

 study was much curtailed, yet I was very siiccessful in adding to my local 

 collection. Amongst the species taken, the folloAving have not been previously 

 recorded by me in this Magazine : Pentatoma rufipes L., uncommon on, or near, 

 oak ; Scolopostethus nffinis Schill., a single specimen beaten from a dead partridge 

 at Grinsdale in January ; Monanthia cardui L., locally common and found in 

 several stages of development at Cummersdale in August ; Hebrus ruficeps Thoms., 

 undeveloped specimens, common in Sphagnum at Orton in avitumn ; Hydrome- 

 tra stagnorum L., numerous specimens seen walking with peculiar gait on the 

 surface of a backwater of the River Fetter il in May : it also occurs in flood refuse in 

 winter; Velia currens F., common, always undeveloped; Gerris thoracicus Schwm., 

 G. gibbifer, Schum., and G. odontogaster Zett., occurred together on a pond on 

 one of the Solway salt marshes ; Ploiariola vagabunda L., two specimens beaten 

 from a dead Scots Fir in September ; Nabis limbatus Dahlb., N. ferus L., and 

 N. rugosus L., all occurred commonly in the sweep-net ; Salda^ saltatoria L., 

 beaten from a dry hedge-bank in February ; 8. pallipes F., not uncommon near 

 water on both sides of the Eden Estuary ; Cimex lectularius L., in Carlisle ; 

 Temnostethus pusillus H.-S., rare, on oak ; Anthoeoris confusus Reut., A. nemor- 

 alis F., and A. neniorum L., all common and frequently found in winter hibern- 

 ating beneath the bark of sycamore and other trees ; Tetraphleps vittata Fieb.> 

 beaten from Scots Fir, along with Acompocoris pygmaeus Fall., Megaloceroea 

 ruficornis Fourc, common at Armathwaite in September ; Leptopterna dolobrata 



