232 [March- 



bearing apon tho point at issue ; differing as they do alike in derivation, sound, and 

 meaning. Neither are the other instances of similarity above given at all in the 

 sarao category as the present names : betulw and betuleti may be inconveniently 

 close ; but their nominatives bear the same relationship to each other as rosa and 

 rosetum, I presume ; and they are not, at all events, parts of, or intended to be 

 parts of, the same word. 



Mr. Sharp's concluding paragraph (apsirt from its undoubted moral value) is 

 not pertinent to the matter, even as an expression of opinion, if not intended to 

 apply either to Thomson for originating, or to myself for adopting, an attempt to 

 simplify ; and, if it be intended so to apply, I think that no one should suggest 

 any but the best motives for such a proposed change. — E. C. R.] 



Observations on Otiorhynchus fuscipes of Olivier, Efc. — The observations on 

 Otiorhynchus fuscipes and O.tenebricosus, by Mr. Rye, at page 181, and his expressed 

 hope that they might induce entomologists to examine their specimens, have so 

 influenced myself ; and the process has brought back to my mind the most im- 

 portant points of a lengthened examination of specimens, and also of a most 

 interesting conversation with Mr. Walton at the time, when he finally determined 

 the distinctive specific difference between Otiorliynclvus fuscipes and 0. tenebricosus. 

 I think it may not prove unprofitable if I publish the results of my recent investi- 

 gation. 



In the first place, let me acknowledge my perfect concurrence in Mr. Rye's 

 opinion, that the 0. fuscipes of Walton is certainly. not that so named by Dr. 

 Stierlin. 



Secondly, after a most careful re-examination of a series of examples of 0. 

 fiosdpes, and also of 0, tenebricosus, given to me by Mr. Walton, I cannot agree 

 with Mr. Rye in considering the former insect a mere variety of the latter. 



Having arrived at this opinion, the question naturally arises, what is the insect 

 named 0. fuscipes by Mr. Walton ? In my opinion it has not been proved that it is 

 not the true 0. fuscipes of Olivier ; it has only been decided that it is not the species 

 so named by Stierlin. Mr. Walton took the greatest possible pains to decide this 

 question ; in the first place, he carefully compared it by a reference to Olivier's 

 description, and he foiand the elytra described by that author " elytns ovato- 

 oblongis crenato striatis"— " elytra vix striata." This is a tnie diagnosis of Mr. 

 Walton's insect, but not of Stierlin's. The true diagnosis of the latter would be 

 Elytris profundius striatis, interstitiis fortius rugulosis. In order to ascertain 

 whether the insect described by Schonherr under the name of 0. fuscipes was 

 identical with his own, Mr. Walton forwarded a series of specimens to that ento- 

 mologist, who at once pronounced them to be so ; Schonherr undoubtedly con- 

 sidered his insect identical with Olivier's ; such, then, was the opinion of two of 

 the most eminent CurcuUonidists, if I may use the term. 



That Mr. Walton most carefully compared both sexes of the species, in every 

 particular, all who are acquainted with him will feel quite satisfied ; and that he 

 left no stone unturned so long as there appeared to be the slightest chance of 

 finding uiiy additional information. To those who had not the good fortune of his 



