18T5.] 235 



5. Camptlostira terna, Fall. 



I have put the uniqiie British example under the microscope and find that the 

 second row of meshes mentioned in the " British Hemiptera " as being on the front 

 of the side margins of the pronotum is so stated in error, the said row of transparent 

 meshes being really on the pronotum,"adjacent to, but not on, the margins. Our 

 species is the true Tinrjis verna, of Fallen. The question raised in the " British 

 Hemiptera " as to it being the developed form of C. hrachycera is still un- 

 determined. — J. TT. D. 



6. Phttocoeis MARMORATtrs, Doug. and Scott. 



Surely Dr. Fieber, to whom this insect was sent with reference to its specific 

 distinctness, must have also been possessed of specimens of P. tili(B with which to 

 compare it ; and with his experience he would not certainly even have had a doubt 

 about its difference. The insect must stand under the above name. — J. S. 



7. OBSCtTEElIUS, Fall. 



Atractotomus pint, Doug, and Scott. 

 As long ago as May, 1868, in the Ent. M. M., iv, p. 268, our specific name for 

 tliis insect was changed to pityophilus, Flor, as we had then received specimens of 

 the last named from Flor proving the insects to be the same, and although we since 

 became aware that further investigation had shewn this species to be identical with 

 the Phytocoris obscurellics, Fall., we did not consider it necessary to make a further 

 correction in this ilagazine, as we are engaged upon the Catalogue of British Item- 

 ipfera, shortly to be published by the Entomological Society, in which this, as well 

 as other corrections, will appear. The discovery that our insect was identical with 

 P. obscurellus, Fall., was first pointed out by Renter, in the Ocfv. Vet. Ak. Furh., 

 1873, so that Dr. Puton merely followed him. — J. S. 



8. TiNiCKPHAXtrs OBSOLETUS, Doug. and Scott. 



We are content to let the insect stand where it is, as we believe the foxmder of 

 the geims to be the most fit person to point out what he meant by it. — J. S. 



9. PsALLCs Aixi, Fab. 



Ps. dihilus, Doug, and Scott, ? Fieb. 

 "We are willing to give credit to Mr. Saunders for his judgment, as far as it goes; 

 but, becau.se Fieber in his Eur. Hem. cites P. dilutu.i as the largest species in the 

 group, and Mr. Saunders has examined the insect in question, and finds only a 

 difference in shade of colour and size, we consider the matter to rest where it was. 

 Besides, Fieber may have given the size of the insect at 2\ lines instead of 1 J 

 line in error, or it may have been an overlooked error of the printer's. — J. S. 



J. "VV. Douglas and J. Scott, Lcc : February, 1875. 



Helophorus tuberculalus in Yorkuhire. — I have nuich ]>leasnre in recording the 

 capture of this insect, in June last, in one of our Moor Bogs, where ISphininum 

 abounds. I identified the specimen from the description in tlie November immber 

 of this magazine, and Mr. Rye has compared it with oTie of the examples taken near 

 Manchester. — T. Wilkinson, 1, Cliff Bridge Place, Scarborough : February, 1875. • 



