1866.] 269 



each with a single row of stout yellowish-grey setae, raking backwards. The 

 anterior tibiae are widened just before the middle, but not very suddenly ; and they 

 are armed on the outer side with 6 or 7 small teeth. 



The species is superficially very unHke H. piniperda ; and, indeed, is more 

 suggestive of a large bright-coloured specimen of PlilceoptTiorus rhododactylus, — 

 with which it is associated by Thomson in the second part of vol. vii., Skand. Col., 

 253, in the sub-genus Carphohorxis, Eichhoff. The insect, however, appears to be 

 more closely allied to Hylurgus than to Phloeopthorus, if it were only for the struc- 

 ture of the club of its antennae, which is short, and scarcely at all flattened ; whilst 

 in the latter genus it is narrow, compressed, distinctly jointed, and much longer 

 than the funiculus. 



H. pilosus is already included in our lists ; being in the collection of Mr. Water- 

 house and others, from Leicestershire, I believe. There is no type of it in the Euro- 

 pean collection in the British Museum.— Id. 



Note on Orchestes rufus. — Mr. P. Smith kindly informs me that there are three 

 specimens (not one specimen only) of this insect in the British collection of the 

 Brit. Mus., carded in exactly the same manner as hosts of others, and with similar 

 pins ; " in fact," as Mr. Smith says, " any one can satisfy himself that all the 

 evidence derivable from an examination of the specimens is in favour of their being 

 British." 



By a typographical error the species 0. iota, Fab., was omitted from my 

 abstract of M. Brisout's paper on Orchestes in our last No. ; it should immediately 

 precede 0. fagi, though not in the same division. — Id. 



A wo^'d about " The British Hemiptera." — The President of the Entomological 

 Society, in his Anniversary Address, has noticed our " British Hemiptera" in terms 

 so partial, that we confess they are more than we could have expected or deserve ; 

 for the merits of the book are mostly taken for granted, and only a few of its 

 defects are pointed out. Yet, as due weight will be attached to the remarks of one 

 so well qualified to judge of the matter, we venture to offer a few words on a criti- 

 cism which is doubtless formed on misconception arising from a hasty inspection of 

 the volume. 



It is stated that "the book is all descriptions ;" and this would seem like high 

 praise of a work that professes to be descriptive, but is qualified by the remark that 

 "there is no attempt to differentiate genera or species." Now it is not quite the 

 fact that the book is aU descriptions ; for the first 50 pages are occupied with the 

 characters of the Sub-Order, Division, Sections and Families ; the latter including 

 those of the genera indicated, which again are fully set forth in connection with 

 their species, and are further illusti'ated by the plates. The genera and species we 

 at first intended to tabulate, but abandoned the plan as unnecessary, since they 

 ai"e so few, when compared with those of the Continent : nevertheless, it is excep- 

 tional that some leading character is not given in the first line of the specific 

 descriptions, or the differences are not pointed out below. We prefen-ed this 

 method to the often-used system of differentiating allied genera and species by one 

 or two characters, by which they frequently become unnaturally separated j and 



