i8«6] 283 



acquaintance, it were vain to attempt to convey any approach to a correct idea of 

 the euthusiastio zeal and untiring enei'gy with which Mr. Walton investigated the 

 family CurculionidcB. 



It is true that in the notes upon 0. fusdpes Mr. Walton does not mention the 

 difference in the striation of the ventral apical segment of the abdomen in the males 

 of the two species ; but in his remarks upon 0. tencbricosus he mentions that 

 character as one appertaining to males only ; the striking difference in the form of 

 the joints of tho antennae appeared to him to present at once the strongest possible 

 characteristic distinction : the sculpture of the elytra he only regarded as one of 

 secondary importance. His own words are, " 0. fxiscipes is a shorter insect, and 

 veiy generally smaller and less pubescent ; but it cliiefly differs by having the 

 antennas in both sexes, with all the articulations, shorter and stouter ; the elytra of 

 the female evidently shorter in proportion to the breadth, and more or less distinctly 

 punctate-striate." This, then, is a description of the most obvious differences 

 between his O.fiiscipes and his 0. tencbricosus ; we may add, that the ventral apical 

 segment of the abdomen of the male of the latter is more coarsely striated than in 

 the former. 



The conclusion, therefore, at which I arrive is, tbat, in all probability, Mr. 

 Walton's O.fuscvpes is identical with tbat of Olivier, and also with the insect so 

 named by Schonherr ; and lastly, that it is a distinct species from that named 0. 

 tenebricosus by Mr. Walton. Stierlin has quoted the 0. ater of Stephens as being 

 synonymous with his 0. fusdpes. This is an error ; the 0. ater is a small specimen 

 of 0. atroapterus. — Fredk. Smith, British Museum, Feb., 1866. 



[I regret that I cannot share Mr. Smith's opinion as to the probable identity 

 of OHvier's and Walton's O.fuscvpes. That gentleman's observations, nevertheless, 

 demand the greatest consideration, as coming from one who of all living entomolo- 

 gists is perhaps best able to elucidate the late Mr. Walton's notions with regard to 

 these species of Otiorhynclms ; since it is to him that we are indebted for the plate 

 accompanying that author's notes above mentioned. Mr. Walton's reputation for 

 careful scrutiny and accurate observation stands too high to need any apology from 

 me for doubting the correctness of one of his recorded species ; but, in the present 

 case, there is only a trifling responsibility attached to him, as (p. 93, loc. cit.) he 

 says, " I have applied the name ' fuscipes^f Oliv.' to this insect on the authority of 

 Schonherr, having sent specimens for his examination ;" so that in bringing forward 

 the insect he simply records the verdict of the latter, which, in my opinion, is 

 counterbalanced by his following remark, " I forwarded many specimens ((J ? ) as 

 Ot. fusdpes of Oliv. and Schonh. to Germar, who referred them to Ot. tenebricosus 

 as varieties." Independently of this initial discrepancy, and without laying undue 

 stress upon the rather numerous instances of carelessness (in the shape of re- 

 descriptions, &c.) exhibited by Schonherr in his Syn. Ins., I incline to the idea that 

 Stierlin, who was engaged upon a monograph of one genus, and had the benefit of 

 his predecessor's work, is more likely to be correct in his determination of OUvier's 

 insect than was Schonherr, who described tho whole Curculionidce. 



Apart from this : Mr. Smith states that, from Olivier's description, the elytra 

 in 0. fusdpes are both ' crenato-striata ' and ' vix striata ' (the apparent incongruity 

 being intended, I presume, to refer to the extreme forms of the species), and that 



