19U0 261 



the specimens I have seen are females, and this though I have made 

 many attempts to discover the male. As the chief locality of the 

 species is close to my residence, I have often endeavoured to discover 

 its special habits, but at present in vain. 



I have now before me two living specimens, captured here on 

 August 11th, and preserved in a flower-pot with Erica tetralix and 

 Call una vulgaris growing, under cover of a glass cylinder capped with 

 wire gauze. 



I believe the species is a very shy one, and is usually concealed 

 in the moss at the base of the clumps of the Erica, but I have once 

 or twice beaten it from TJlex bushes, round the base of which Erica 

 was growing. The glass cylinders just mentioned I find keep Coleo- 

 ptera and their larvae alive better than any other method I have tried. 

 The two living individuals are females, and though they have flourished 

 quite healthily — to all appearance at any rate — there are no signs of 

 eggs or larvae. 



The species occurs here as a companion of the extremely abundant 

 H. ytenensis (to be subsequently described) and in consequence of the 

 fact that I could only find females of it, I for long tried to persuade 

 myself that it is a dimorphic form of ytenensis ; but I am pretty sure 

 that this is not the case, as the female genital characters are of them- 

 selves sufficient for the separation of the two. 



Haltica britteni, sp. n. 

 Haltica ericeti Fowler, Edwards, nee Allard. 

 <$ Graptodera longicollis Rye, Ent. Mo. Mag., 12, p. 179. 

 ? Graptodera. ericeti Rye, ex parte. 



If I have (following Mr. Britten) correctly determined the ericeti 

 of Allard, we are much assisted in comprehending the allied form for 

 which I propose the name of britteni, in honour of Mr. H. Britten, of 

 the Oxford University Museum. 



The female of this species is partly the ericeti of our earlier 

 collections, and the £ at any rate is our old H. longicollis. 



It is here that we are puzzled on account of our not knowing the 

 male of the true ericeti. Hence the very few females of true ericeti 

 that were extant were mixed with the species now under consideration. 

 Consequently the localities recorded for ericeti are not trustworthy, as 

 they apply to two species. 



