^2 ] 125 



Harpalus latus, var. metallescens, Rye. 



Tliis curious variety of H. latus, with metallic instead of black elytra, was dis- 

 covered and introduced by Mr. Rye (Ent. Mo. Mag., xi, 84). 



IIaepalus 4-ptrNCTATTJS, Dej. 



This insect is very like H. latus, but larger and more parallel, with bluish re- 

 flection ; the thorax, too, is not furnished with the testaceous edge so evident in H. 

 latus ; on the apical half of the third interstice of each elytron are two or three 

 large punctures. Taken at Braemar by Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Champion, and by 

 several collectors since ; it has also occurred in Ireland (Ent. Ann., 1874, 78 ; Ent. 

 Mo. Mag., X, 68). 



Aciipalpus derelictus, Dawa. 



There has been a great deal of discussion over this insect, which has been re- 

 garded as merely a dark variety of A. dorsalis ; it would, however, seem that the 

 unique example taken by Mr. F. Smith near London, from which Mr. Dawson de- 

 scribed the insect, is quite distinct, but that dark specimens of A. dorsalis have 

 passed for the species in collections (Ent. Ann., 1860, 125 ; 1866, 61). 



Aetcpalptis brunnipes, Sturm. 



It seems doubtful whether Sturm's insect is a distinct species from A. dorsalis 

 (Ent. Ann., 1866, 47). 



Tacliys quadrisignatus. Duft. 



This appears to be rather a doubtful species, as it rests on a single example 

 taken by Mr. Bold near Newcastle, which may probably turn out to be only a light 

 variety of T. bistriatus, Duft. (Ent. Ann., 1866, 61 ; Ent. Mo. Mag., xix, 68). 



Semhidmm lampros, v. velox, Er. 



This variety has been made into a new species by Thomson, under the name of 

 B. \4>- striatum ; each elytron has seven striae instead of six like the normal form ; 

 there are, too, a few other slight differences, but, on the whole, it would appear best 

 to leave it still as a variety (Ent. Ann., 1874, 80). 



HTDRADEPHAGA. 



Saliplus varius, Nicolai. 



This insect cannot possibly be retained as a separate species ; it seems, however, 

 doubtful whether it is to be considei'ed as a variety of M. conjinis, Steph. (H. lineatus, 

 Aube), or whether it is to be considered a variety of H. ohiiquus, Fab. I do not 

 possess the insect, but have seen it in Dr. Power's collection, and certainly thought 

 that it looked extremely like a light variety of H. ohiiquus. Erichson and Aube 

 considered it a variety of this species. There is, moreover, a doubt whether Mr. 

 Bold's insects, on which the species was introduced into our lists, are really referable 

 to Raliplus varius, Nicolai (Ent. Ann., 1869, 14; Ent. Mo. Mag., iv, 284). 



Sydroporus incognittis, Sharp. 



It is a question whether this is synonymous with II . vagepictus, Fairm. ; it 



