234 [March. 



this is a true diagnosis of Walton's insect, but not of Stierlin's, in which they would 

 be " pi'ofundius striatis," &o. This, however, is scarcely correct ; for Stierlin's type 

 offuscij^cs has the elytra crenate-striate ; his 1st var. has the deeper striatiou, &c., 

 mentioned by Mr. Smith ; and his 2nd var. (fagi, Chevr.) has the elytra 'vix striata,' 

 and 'confertini ruguloso-tubercidafa,' Stierlin's insect would seem, therefore, not to 

 difTor from Olivier's. 



I must admit I have never seen any examples of the so-called fuscipes, such as 

 Mr. Smith appears to possess, exhibiting specific distinctions from tenehricosus ; and 

 the antennal differences, &c., must be very minute ; for, unless I am much mistaken, 

 Mr. Smitli himself told me some time ago that it took him an entire day to draw the 

 simple figures above alluded to, on account of the difhculty he experienced in 

 deciding upon their characters ; that Mr. Walton in a measure compelled him to see 

 the differences ; and that be had since been unable to consider the two species as 

 satisfactorily settled. 



I must attach more importance than Mr. Smith does to the omission of any 

 notice of the male cliaracter by Walton in describing 0. fuscipcs, as it seems that 

 he had expressly remarked it in 0. tenehricosus ; and, being quite aware of the 

 extremely close alliance of the insects he sought to separate, would assuredly have 

 recorded any difference in this respect, — had there been any, as there should have 

 been, if his iusect were the true fuscipes. 



Lastly, it sems that 0. fuscipes is found only in mountainous regions (except, 

 perhaps, the var. fagi, with which, from his description, it is impossible that all Mr. 

 Walton's specimens should be identical, if, indeed, he had that form at all, which I 

 doubt) ; whilst Mr. Walton states that it is commonly found in company with 0. 

 tenehricosus, and in the same localities, viz., hedges in Surrey and other southern 

 counties, though he once found it in the Isle of Portland unaccompanied by that 

 species. 



The conclusion, therefore, to which I adhere is that Stierlin is most likely 

 correct in his determination ; and, consequently, that Mr. Walton's insect is not the 

 fuscipes of Olivier ; also that Mr. Smith's specimens are possibly distinct from 0. 

 tenehricosus ; though, if they be (as is most likely) identical with those sent by 

 Walton to Germar, they are probably only varieties of that species. — E. C. R.] 



Tlaploglossa pulla talcen near Newcastie-on-Tyne. — When beating for insects in 

 the woods at Gibside, on the 25th of August, I was much gratified by capturing 

 four specimens of Haploglossa pulla, Gyll. The beetle appeared to frequent the 

 flowers of the heather, but for what purpose I could not learn. Gylleuhal says that 

 its habitat is in fungi. — Thos. Jno. Bold, Long Benton, January 27(/i, 1866. 



Myrmica lohicomis in Dwrham and Northumberland. — This veiy rare ant has 

 this year turned up in our district. It appears to be a littoral species ; living in 

 small communities beneath stones on sand-banks. I found one female and two 

 workers at South Shields in April. Eight others, also workers, were mot with near 

 Whitley in August, and I have one worker from BIyth. I was not lucky enough to 

 find males ; but, as the insect seems widely spi'cad, I hope to be more fortunate 

 thib year. — Id. 



