224 November, 



Brit, is really the cotninon Harpalus rotundicollis, Fair. Fabricius's Sarpalus oh- 

 tcurus comes very near Sarpalus sabulicola, Panz., and is the same as the Ophonus 

 ttictus of Stephens. Dr. Power tells me that when the name rotundicollis was 

 substituted for ohscurus by Mr. Crotch and others, the name ohsuurus was still re- 

 tained for an insect which was only obtained by himself and others near Swaffham 

 (Cambridge) ; it was, he says, a very distinct thing, but it was evidently nearer H. 

 sabulicola than R. rotundicollis, as both he and Professor Eabington distributed it 

 as the former species. 



Haepalus difpinis, Dej. 



This insect appears very closely related to H. rotundicollis, Fairm. ; the latter 

 insect is only distinguished by having the sides of the thorax more strongly 

 rounded and the apex of the elytra more distinctly sinuate (Insecten Deutschlands, 

 i, 574). S. diffinis is certainly found in England ; it is a question, however, whether 

 it is really a distinct species ; still, it seems to be considered distinct on the continent, 

 and can hardly be omitted from our list. 



Sarpalus cordatus, Duft., H. rupicola, Sturm., H. punctlcollis, Payk., 

 I£. riifiharhis, Fab. (cribellum, Daws.), H. parallelus, Dej. 



These species of Sarpalus require a careful revision : in Mr. Rye's collection 

 there is a distinct species, apparently near S. cordatus. S. parallelus appears to be 

 a doubtful species, and to be at best a variety. The two species that precede it seem 

 occasionally to be hard to distinguish. I have, however, taken a large number 

 (over 100) of Sarpalus rufibarhis in one spot, and found the shape of the thoi'ax 

 very constant. 



Haepalus geiseits, Panz. 



This species, which is considered by Dr. Sharp to be merely a variety of S. 

 rujtcornis, appears to be generally regarded as distinct on the continent ; it is de- 

 scribed by Dr. Schaum (Insecten Deutschlands, i, 584) as very near S. rujicornis, 

 but considerably smaller. The thorax is only punctured at the base, the hind angles 

 are, as in S. rujicornis, nearly right angles, but not so sharp as in that species. The 

 ely tra are scarcely sinuate at the apex, whereas, in S. rujicornis, they are distinctly 

 sinuate. If these diilerences are constant, the form would certainly have specific 

 value. I have, however, a specimen from the New Forest which, al first sight, looks 

 very different to S. rujicornis, chiefly owing to size, but, on closer examination, it is 

 extremely hard to make out the distinctions. 



Harpalus siilphuripes, Germ. 



The British exponents of this species appear to belong to other allied species ; 

 it must, therefore, be erased from the list. 



ILarpalus luteicornis, Duft. 



The same remarks apply to this species as to the preceding. Mr. E. Saunders 

 possesses examples of both species (named by autliorities), but he tells me that he 

 feels sure that they need not be regarded as having specific value. The claims of this 

 species to be indigenous have been quite demolished by Mr. Eye. Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 I, 229. 



