188i.J 183 



The form of the anal appendages of the (^ is very different in the 

 two species. If my ideas are morphologically correct, the inner tuber- 

 cle (" portion interne saillante " of Eambur) in the appendages of 

 occitanica really represents their true apex, the process below it being 

 supplementary (and absent in hceticd). There is also a ventral process 

 (or inferior appendage) which is longer in hcBtica than in occitanica. 



Locality is no guide. A. occitanica occurs certainly in all the 

 Mediterranean districts of Europe (introduced in Prussia), South 

 Eussia, and in Central Asia. (A $ and $ from Bone in Algeria, in 

 in De Selys' collection, have a slightly different /fcc^Vs in wing-markings, 

 but are not structurally distinct). A. hcetica occurs in Spain, at Mont- 

 pellier (coll. McLach.), in Turkey (Besika Bay, coll. McLach.), and in 

 Syria {teste Hagen). 



With a view to test the bibliography, I have consulted most of 

 the older authors, and in my opinion they all had A. occitanica under 

 consideration. I will here briefly refer to those authors who have 

 given figures : 



De Tillers (Linn. Ent., iii, p. 63, pi. vii, fig. 10, 1789), originally de- 

 scribed the species as Myrmeleon occitanicutn (from Nimes in the 

 south of France) ; his figure is excellent, and shows distinctly the 

 inequality in the two rows of costal areoles. 



Eossi (Faun. Etrusca, ii, p. 14, pi. ix, fig. 8, 1790), under the name 

 M. lihellidoides pisanus, gives a wretched figure, but no doubt in- 

 tended to represent occitanica. In his description he shows that the 

 form of the tibial spurs had not escaped his notice. 



Olivier's figure {M. occitanicum, Encyc. Method., viii, p. 122, pi. xcvii, 

 fig. 6) is only a bad copy of Eossi's. 



Panzer's figure of M. pisanum (Faun. Germ., fasc. 59, pi. iv) was 

 undoubtedly meant for occitanica (^), but it is indifferent, and he 

 contrived to represent the principal nervures as double. 



Fischer von Waldheim (Ent. Euss., iv, p. 43, pi. i, fig. 1, circa 1846) 

 describes and figures A. occitanica as Myrineleon georgianum ; his 

 figure is tolerable. In his description he uses the vague term 

 " costsB duae praecipuse duplicatse " {cf. also Hagen, Stett. Zeit., 1858, 

 p. 125), by which I think he intended to allude to the double row 

 of costal areoles. At any rate, I cannot otherwise account for the 

 expression, and he was not influenced by Panzer's flgure. 



A. Costa (Faun. Napoli, Neurotteri, Myrmeleontidea, p. 7, pi. viii, 

 fig. 2) gives a good description as Acanthaclisis occitanica, and his 



