230 [March, 



When the collection forwarded to Herr Kutschera is returned, an account of that 

 nutlior's views relating to our species will be forwarded to the " Entomologist's 

 Month. Mag." — Chas. O. WATEEnousE, British Museum, February 12th, 1866. 



Occurrence of Boeocrara littorcdis, a species new to Britain. — I have detected 

 among some beetles, which I captured at Rannoch, a species of Trichopteryx which 

 I believe has not yet been recorded as British, viz., Boeocrara littoralis of Thomson. 

 It has all the facies of a Triclwptcryx ; but, when closely examined, it is found that 

 the sides of the thorax are thickly margined, and the jDosterior angles not acute 

 and produced behind, but right angles ; while the punctuation of the upper surface 

 is far coarser and more distant than in any other species with which I am acquainted 

 of the genus. 



On these characters Thomson has founded the new genus Bceocrara ; but it is, 

 I think, doubtful whether this will stand unless other chai'actei-s are found ; indeed 

 De Marseul in his catalogue places it as a mere sub-division of Trichopteryx, while 

 Schaum, accepting the species, sinks the genus altogether ; if, however, this course 

 be adopted, the trivial name littoralis must, I fear, be changed, a Trichopteryx 

 littoralis (really, however, a Ptenidium, as evident from the figure given) having 

 been described by Motschulsky in the Mosc. bull.. Vol. 18, p. 517, for ISiS. In 

 accordance with the time-honoured custom, in such a case Thomsoni should be 

 adopted as the name for the insect now recorded. — D. Shakp, 12, St. Vincent-st., 

 Edinburgh. 



Apion ononidis. — The question of the lawful name of this insect having been 

 raised, and, by reason of the editorial comment appended to my last notice, loft 

 (I beg leave to think) in a most unsatisfactory state, it is evidently desirable that 

 we should settle the matter at onoe, and not wait until the species takes its place 

 in our various catalogues under different appellations. Nothwithstanding the 

 priority of the name ononidis, Mr. Rye suggests two reasons for adopting that of 

 Bohemani, the first of which amounts to this, that Gyllenhal's description is appli- 

 cable to both sexes ; Boheman's to the (? only, and is therefore to be preferred ! 

 Thomson's insertion of the word mns after his reference to Boheman's description 

 meaning simply (as everyone acquainted with entomological literature must of 

 course recognise) that the said description was that of a male specimen. Moreover, 

 though Gyllenhal has not noticed all the differences of the sexes, he has noticed 



cue of the most important ("rostrum maris pa ulo hrevius") ; and, granting that 



the older of the two descriptions is not a perfect one, surely the more recent one 

 by which it is to be supplanted should be a better ; whereas the fact really is that 

 while Gyllenhal's description is slightly imperfect, Boheman's is altogether 

 erroneous, for he has made a most curious blunder about the insect : it is this, — 

 giving a revised list of the species of the genus Apion, he enumerates " 94< (? $ A, 

 ononidis, Gyllenh.," and then as No. 95 immediately proceeds to describe the <? as 

 another and new species ! ! But this is not all ; there seems to me to be some 

 doubt whether Bohemani really is synonymous at all with ononidis; for not one of 

 all the distinguished entomologists who have studied Boheman's description has ever 

 recognised that it is to be applied to the well-known A. ononidis. In the Stettin 



