28G ^ [March, 



AcALTPTA, Wcfetw., were not tenable in Hemiptera, on account of previous occupation 

 in ColeojHera, the former having indeed been expressly rescinded by Amyot and 

 Serville for this very reason (Htm., p. 253), the late Prof. Stal wrote to rae that, 

 nevertheless, he did not see any reason for not using the names in Hemiptera, and 

 that any law to the contrary must be abrogated. I had too much respect for Stal to 

 continue the argument, but, considering the utter confusion that must prevail if the 

 principle of double emploie were tolerated, and the tendency now shown to action in 

 this direction, I think it right again to draw attention to the subject. 



BEOsrs, Am. et Serv., is made to include IscnNOTAESirs, Fieb. (1861) = 

 DiEUCHES, A. Dohrn (1860). Fieber, however, expressly separated his genus (which 

 includes our species Inscus, Fab.) from that of Am. et Serv., putting three other genera 

 between them. Dr. A. Dohrn had previously distinguished and separated his 

 equivalent genus. 



Scolopostethus decoratus, Hahn, = ericetorum, Leth., melanocerus, Thoms. 



I have already (E. M. M., xiv, 13) given reasons for believing that this deter- 

 mination is not correct. Hahn (Wanz., i, 139) says of his decoratus — " Fiihler 

 schwarzbraun, das erste Glied derselben am Endo und das zweite am G-runde rothlich 

 gelbe," and the figm-e (pi. xxii, f. VI) so represents them. But these are not the 

 characters of S. ericetorum, Leth., in which the antennae have the 2nd joint only 

 pale at the extreme base, all the joints, with this exception, being black. Therefore, 

 Letliierry's name should stand. — J. W. Douglas, 8, Beaufort Gardens, Lewisham : 

 January 13th, 1879. 



Note on Halictus ptmcticollis, ^'c. — Since writing the descv'iTption oi Hi/menoptera 

 that appeared in the last No. of this Magazine, I had occasion to refer to a paper by 

 Morawitz on some new bees from Germany, which was published in the Verhand- 

 lungen des zool.-bot. Yereins in Wien, vol. xxii, and there, at page 370, I came 

 across the description of an Halictus pnncticoUis which agrees in every particular, 

 80 far as I can judge, with the species I have just described ; it is strange we should 

 have both selected the same name for the same insect. The species will have to 

 stand in our lists as pmicticollis, Mor., Verh. zool.-bot. Wien, xxii, p. 370. It is 

 possible also that longiceps may prove to be his poi'ctis, but here the description does 

 not quite agree, so I must wait for further evidence. — E. Saundees, Upper Tooting : 

 February, 1879. 



Note on Halictus puncticollis. — This insect is probably common here, as Mr. 

 Saunders, on looking at my specimens oi Halicti, picked out seven specimens (4 $ 

 and 3 ? ) which had been supposed to be H. villosulus. — E. !N. Bloomfield, 

 Guestling : February IQith, 1879. 



Occurrence in Britain of Nonaqria sparganii, Fsper. — At the Meeting of the 

 Scientific Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society, held on the 14th January, 

 Mr. Sydney Webb exhibited a <J of a species of Noctuidee new to our Fauna, which 

 he had determined as above. He had bred it from a larva (one of many) feeding in 

 the stems of Iris pseudacorus in Surrey. It is closely allied to N. iyphce, and, on 

 the continent, is almost as common and as widely distributed as is that species, 

 being priced at under sixpence by the continental dealers. The only wonder is that 

 it has not been previously detected here. It usually feeds in Typha,so that its food, 

 plant here (so far as is at present known) is new. — Eds. 



