1S92.J 81 



BlacJc variety of Homaloplia ruricola. — In the I^ovember No. of the Ent. 

 Mo. Mag. Mr. A. Cottam records the capture of a black variety of Homaloplia 

 ruricola. At the end of June, 1891, whilst collecting on the chalk hills at Ports- 

 down, Hants, I met with a specimen of this variety walking on the chalk there, but, 

 like Mr. Cottam, I was unaware that my captui'e was of any importance, and did 

 not search for any more, or possibly the type may have turned up there. My insect 

 has been very kindly identified for me by Mr. Waterhouse, of the British Museum, 

 South Kensington, who informed me at the time that the variety was not often met 

 ■with. I have not seen the specimens alluded to by Mr. Cottam, but hope to do so 

 on my next visit to the Museum. — C. Coles, 61, Barrington Eoad, Brixton, S.W. : 

 January, 1892. 



Bagous petro, Herhst. — In my " British Coleoptera," vol. v, p. 288, I have de- 

 scribed B. petro as from various localities : it turns out, however, that only the 

 specimen recorded from Askham Bog (which I took myself, in company with Arch- 

 deacon Hey, on August 10th, 1880) is really to be referred to this species ; this 

 specimen, therefore, is unique as British, and is a very interesting capture, as it 

 represents a subgenus new to Britain, viz., Helminthimorphus, Cussac, which is 

 distinguished by having the first joint of the club (the ninth of the antennae) glabrous 

 and shining, and as long as all the following united. In shape it very much resembles 

 the B. limosus of our collections, which is synonymous with B. petrosns, W. C. ; it 

 is to this latter species that the other localities mentioned under B. j)etro must be 

 referred, the similarity of name and shape has caused the confusion. Dr. Sharp, in 

 the second edition of his " Catalogue of British Coleoptera," p. 31, has fallen into 

 the same mistake, and gives B. petro instead of B. petrosus as synonymous with 

 B. limosus. 



It will be noticed that in my description of B.frit I have remarked on a dis- 

 crepancy between the account of the insect as given by different authors who have 

 adopted the name. On examining into the matter I find that we undoubtedly have 

 two species, and that I have omitted to describe separately the species with long 

 tarsi, which is named by Bedel as B. claudicans, Boh. Bedel gives the synonymy 

 of the species as follows : — 



Htdeonomus (Bagous) frtt, Herbst. 



suhcarinafus, Gryll. 



CLAUDICANS, Boh. 



mutictis, Thorns. 

 longitarsis, Thom*?. 

 frit, H. Brisout. 

 and he describes B.frit as having the first, second and third joints of the posterior 

 tarsi elongate and subequal in length, and B. claudicans as having the second and 

 third joints of the posterior tarsi as long as, or a little longer than, broad, but both 

 evidently shorter than the first. On the other hand, Thomson's description of B. 

 frit (Skand. Col., vol. vii, p. 183) evidently refers to the species with the short tarsi, 

 and in vol. x, pp. 184, 185, he describes at length two separate species, B. muticus 

 and B. longitarsis, of which the latter, as its name implies, has elongate tarsi, whereas 

 the former is described as having the second joint of the tarsi subtransverse and not 



