56 [March, 



Front femora very thick and strong, stouter than in B. nitidus, but without 

 short stubby spines on their under-side as in that speeies ; first joint of the front 

 tarsi armed witb a decided hook in front at the tip. 



Middle femora not so constricted at the base, and without the short stubby 



Fig. 1. B. notabilis, $. Ri<dit middle leg. 

 spines of B. nitidus, but with a row of bristles in front, which get longer and 

 more distinct as they approach the tip ; femora beneath and tibia} on the under- 

 side clothed with long soft hairs, which are longer on the tibia 1 than on the 

 femora. There are fewer spines on the middle tibia? than in B. nitidus, as there 

 are only two on the under-side in addition to those at the apex, one almost in front 

 at about two-thirds, and one towards behind a little nearer the tip ; middle tarsi 

 without the pubescence of B. nitidus, and the first joint only equal in length to the 

 next two instead of the next three as in that species. 



Hind femora without the hooked process of the male of B. nitidus, but with 

 4 — 5 fine bristles above and 2 — 3 below nearer the tip ; hind tibiae with a short 

 bristle in front towards beneath, a little more than half way down, the usual 

 pre-apical seta, and two apical spurs, neither of which are twisted or flattened as 

 in B. nitidus ; first joint of the hind tarsi with a hook at the tip behind, and very 

 little more than half the length of the next joint, which is but very slightly 

 dilated. 



Wings not so yellowish as in B. nitidus, though with the cross-veins obscured. 



Length, 4^ mm. 



I have only seen one male of this species which I found on some 

 fungi in Bradley Park Wood (Suffolk) on November Gth, 1898, but 

 it is so abundantly distinct that I have considered it safe to describe 

 it as new. The female ought to be easily separated from that of B. 

 nitidus by the number of spines on the middle, and the presence of 

 the bristle in front of the hind tibiae. 



I have compared this species only with B. nitidus in the above 

 description, as it superficially resembles that species more than any 

 other]; B. suillorum and B. Boseri, besides being only half the size, 

 have not the bristle in front of the hind tibiae, and have the legs 

 more extensively pale ; B. niger, of which I have not yet seen a 

 British specimen, has the bristle on the hind tibia?, but differs 

 in having only one pair of the outer dorsal row of bristles de- 

 veloped, and is a duller species with the legs abundantly clothed 



