

1908. | 



39 



specimen or, C. brunneum, and indeed they can only be separated by a careful com- 

 parison of the two j it will then bo Been that it bus the thorax less strongly punc- 

 tured and distinctly lcs-< sinning than in C. brunneum. 



C. denticulatum, Kr.— I have had the good fortune to take two specimens of 

 this very rare species. Tt is of the same size as C. brunneum, but is broader, and 

 may be recognised by its very fine punctuation, large dark club to the antennae, and 

 more dilated tibia?. 



C. angulare, Er.— Mr. Donisthorpe has kindly lent me a specimen of this great 

 rarity for examination, which he took at Weybridge on April 29th, 1893. In 

 general appearance it closely resembles C. barnevillei, but the $ can of course be 

 easily recognised by having a small sharp tooth in the middle of the posterior femora, 

 and the apical angle prominent. The 9 , however, must be much more difficult to 

 identify. It can be separated from C. barnevillei and C. brunneum by its less 

 transverse thorax and the more gradual club of the antennae, the 8th joint being 

 much narrower than the 9th. 



C. appendiculatum, Sahib.— There is no difficulty in identifying the S of this 

 species by the curious tufted blunt posterior femoral tooth, but the ? resembles C. 

 denticulatum in its extremely fine punctuation. It may, however, be known by its 

 average larger size, the sinuation of the base of the thorax, and the traces of striae 

 on the elytra. Fowler is in error in giving the last character to C. denticulatum.— 

 Norman H. Jot, Bradfield, Berks : January 2nd, 1908. 



Recapture of Lxmophlozus monilis, F., in Berkshire.— Since taking La>mophloeus 

 monilis, F., near Streatley on November 8th and 18th, 1905, 1 have visited the same 

 tree on several occasions. The following spring I found one dead specimen under a 

 small piece of bark. In the autumn of 1906 there were large numbers of Litargus 

 bifasciatus, F., Diplocwlusfagi, Chevr., and the three species of Rkinosimus on the 

 tree, but I was disappointed at not taking the Lxmophlceus. Last year the tree, a 

 medium sized beech, still seemed in very good condition, but unfortunately I was 

 unable to visit it after August until December 21st, when, however, I was delighted 

 in finding four specimens, one of which was dead, a fact which makes me think that 

 perhaps it was considerably more common earlier in the autumn. This makes a 

 total of seventeen specimens that have been taken, but I have strong reason to sus- 

 pect that it will not occur again on that particular tree.— Id. 



Why should not Teretrius picipes, F., be commensal with Lyctus canaliculatus, 

 F., as well as with L. brunneus, Steph. ?— In his short note (Ent. Mo. Mag., Ser. 2, 

 xviii, p. 275) entitled "Is Teretrius picipes, ¥., parasitic on Lyctus canaliculatus, F., 

 as well as on L. brunneus, Steph. ? " Mr. Bedwell states the fact that the interesting 

 little Histerid beetle, T. picipes, was taken by himself with L. canaliculatus, at the 

 same time pointing out that his brother Coleopterists regard this association as 

 improbable. We all know that T. picipes is parasitic (in the broadest sense of the 

 word) on L. brunneus, and some Entomologists seem to think it cannot be found 

 with another beetle, however closely allied, thus expressing (perhaps unintentionally) 

 serious doubts when they learn that it is found with L. canaliculatus, a beetle 

 belonging to the same genus as L. brunneus, of about the same size and practically 



