1915.] 1:33 



1. — Merjempleurus rugnsus 01. 



This species needs no description, so far as the specimens known 

 to me go, beyond the characters of the genus and sub-genns. But it is 

 difficult to say anything exhaustive as to its distribution owing to 

 M. pnrculns being confounded with it. The distinction between the 

 sub-genera Me'iempleiirv.^ and Siniempleur'ns as regards the form of 

 the head appears hitherto to have escaped observation, so that I 

 cannot say what species, real or supposed, may come under Megem- 

 pleurus, pi'oper, but I know only the one here under consideration, 

 and have no acquaintance with the siculvs or pyrenaeus of Kuwert. 

 It occurs not only in Britain but appears to be widely distributed in 

 the Mediterranean region. I have specimens before me from France 

 (Alsace, Pyrenees, etc.), Spain ( Albarracin) , Algei'ia (Biskra, etc.), 

 Tangier, Malta, Thaso Island, and Besika Bay. The variation is not 

 very great. In our own country M. rngoaus has been recorded from 

 England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and also has been described as 

 injurious to turnips; but most of these records probably refer to the 

 next species. Reitter does not distinguish the two as occurring in 

 Germany, and mentions only rugosus " in Westdeutschland, selir selten." 



The aedeagus in M. rugoaus is characteristic, the lateral lobes 

 being rounded externally, pointed, extending considerably beyond the 

 stout median lobe, and well separated at their tips. 



It has been proposed to replace the well-known name of rugosus 

 by that of nifipes on the ground that the species may be the Opatrum 

 rufipes of Bosc. M. de Bosc's memoir has the distinction of being 

 the shortest and worst I have yet become acquainted with ; here is the 

 whole of it : " Description d'une nouvelle espece d'opatre par M. Bosc. 

 — Opatrum rufipes, Opatrum cinereum, thorace tuberculato, elytris 

 sulcatis, antennis pedibusque I'ufis. H. Parisiis, trouveenmai." When 

 we recollect that Opatrum belongs to a different primary division of 

 the Coleoptera, I think we are not warranted in concluding that his 

 species was Helophorus rugoKiis. M. de Bosc's description may be 

 consigned to the oblivion from which it should not have been exhumed, 

 after a century of peaceful repose. It was published in Bull. Soc 

 Philoinat., Paris, 1791, p. 8. 



2. — Megeiiipleiiriis (Simemj^levrux) pomUiii^ Bedel. 



This species has Ijeen, and still is, confounded in collections Avith 

 M. rugosus, though the two are not really closely allied, Jif . porculus 



