18G5.J 68 



Capture of a new British Malthodes. — I caught two specimens of a Malthodes 

 at Gibside in July last year, which I have since determined to be Malthodes mysticus, 

 Kiesenw., Thomson, Skandinaviens Coleoptera, Vol. VI., 199, 3 ; and which is, I 

 believe, new to the British Fauna. It has much the look of M. dispar ; but differs 

 in being darker coloured, and in having the thorax and elytra proportionately 

 shorter. The sub-quadrate thorax, also, is distinctly margined, and the ventral 

 segments in the male are very different. One of the specimens has dark-coloured 

 unspotted elytra, whilst the other has the usual yellow tips. — Thos. Jno. Bold, 

 Long Benton, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Jvme 21st, 1865. 



Note on Steiiolophus derelictus, Daws. — Mr. J. F. Dawson has sent me his 

 unique example of this insect ; which, apart from its extremely dark colour, differs 

 from any 8. dorsalis that I have seen (although I possess one of the Wimbledon 

 varieties of that species, identical with the ordinary metropoUtau exponents of 

 derelictus') in being larger and wider, with its thorax broader, not straightly 

 narrowed behind, but somewhat rounded, and with the basal fovece quite un- 

 punctured : in fact, it very much more resembles a rather small specimen of 8. 

 elegans (from which, however, it is distinct) than anything else. Mr. Dawson 

 informs me that he never saw the insect sent to Dr. Schaum as derelictus; and 

 that the sender never saw his (Mr. Dawson's) unique type of that species. — B. C. 

 Ryk, 284, King's Road, Chelsea. 



Corrections in the genus Ceuthorhynchideiis. — The insect described by me as 

 C. Poweri (Ent. M. Mag., Vol. I., p. 137) appears to be the Bhynchwnus pumilio of 

 Gyllenhal (Ins. Snec, IV., app., 578, 66, 67). Having gone through the species in 

 the sub-genus Ceuthorhynchideus of Dr. Sohaum's last European Catalogue, and 

 found that we possessed them all in Britain, I naturally imagined that this distinct 

 insect was new to science : it seems, however, that several species of Ceuthor- 

 hynchideus are erroneously included among the Ceuthorhynchi in that Catalogue ; 

 hence my mistake. It may not be generally known (and was first pointed out, as 

 Mr. Crotch tells me, in M. de Marseul'a Catalogue) that the insects known to us 

 as Ceuthorhynchus horridus, troglodytes (including the cognate species made at its 

 expense by the French Entomologists), pygmceus (Guyon in litt.), and querdcola, are 

 all true Ceuthorhynchidii, having but six joints to the funiculus. 



Thomson (Skand. Col., Tom. 7, Haft. 1, 255, 2) makes the cochlearice of Gyll. 

 (Ins. Suec, III., 144, 66) one of his section with ten-jointed antennae {^Ceuthor- 

 hynchideus, Du v.), and gives pulvinatus, Gyll., and pyrrorJvynchus, Marsh., aa 

 synonyms of that species. From Gyllenhal's description, however, there can be 

 no doubt that the insect (a true Ceuthorhynchus) known to us as cochlearice is 

 correctly so named, and that it has nothing to do with Marsham's species. 

 Gyllenhal likens cochlearice to contractus and floralis, stating that it differs from the 

 former in its more convex thorax and spa/ringVy pubescent elytra with rounded 

 shoulders, and in having the base of the suture and the breast thickly clothed with 

 white scales ; and from the latter in the more deeply punctured striae of its elytra, 

 which are more convex, more scantily pubescent, and with rounded shoulders. It 

 is evident that pyrrorhynchus cannot be confounded with this insect, to say nothing 



