A(iABU!S LN(tUI(JUL,ARIS AND A. AFFINIS. 91 



into the subject, although it is, perhaps, not quite as satisfactoi'y as 

 could have been desired. A. affinis was described by Paykull in 1798 

 (/*«. Suet:, p. 211), A. (l\ri<iU'nm) un(/((iciilaris by Thompson in 1860 

 (Skand. Col., ix., p. 102). The latter is a not uncommon species in 

 the British isles, and I have been able to examine specimens from 

 Cumberland, Armagh, Askham bog (Yorkshire), Norfolk, and Esher 

 (Surrey). The form known in our cabinets as A. affinis was introduced 

 by Dr. Sharp to the British list on specuiiens taken by himself and 

 the late Mr. Lennon near Dumfries. I have also received it from 

 Mr. Day, of Carlisle, and Mr. Britten, of Penrith, taken in North 

 Cumberland. It has also been recorded by Mr. Edwards from 

 Brandon, in Suffolk {Knt. Mo. Man., 1890. p. 64). These latter 

 specimens I have, however, had no opportunity of seeing. In T>v. 

 Sharp's great work on the Df/tmidac the two species are described as 

 follows : — 



Oblongo-ovalis, niger, vix supva subaenescens, antennis pedibusque lutis, 

 feinoiibus pieescentibus, sublaevigatus, elytris guttula pone, medium maculaque 

 apiciali pallidis, 6:Jx3J. A. affiiiis. 



Ovalis sat convexus vix supra subaenescens, antennis pedibusque rutis, 

 t'emoribus pieescentibus, subtillisime reticulatus, nitidus, elytris guttula pone 

 medium niaeulaque apiciale pallidis, elytris punctis subseriatis at apicialibus haud 

 profundis, epipleuris basi rufeseentibus, (>J x 3^. A. tiiifiuicularix. 



Now it is obvious that the disparity here expressed is insufficient to 

 separate satisfactorily the two species, and comparison between the 

 Dumfries specimens and admitted A. tini/iticidaris hardly confirms the 

 slight difference in sculpture thus indicated. In Canon Fowler's work 

 more stress is laid on the shape, colour of body, and difference m 

 colour of the reflexed base of elytra — pitchy -red in A. wiiindcidaris 

 and black in A. affinis. An examination, however, of a number of 

 specimens of obviously the same species from the same locality shows 

 that this latter character varies considerably, and cannot be relied on 

 as a specific character. 



Thompson [Skand. ( 'oL, ix., 102) says of A. an<ii(iri(larl>> : 

 " Gaurodyti afhni simillimus, sed .... prothorace lateribus 

 piceis, apicem versus magis angustato, capite minori, metasternique 

 laciniis lateralibus angustioribus discedeus; " and of J. ajfinis : "Mas — 

 tarsis anticis unguiculis brevibus, anteriore infra medium subtus dente 

 valido acuto armato," and, further, " In mare structura ab aftinibus 

 optima distinguendus." Bedel [Col. du Baasvn de la Seine, i., 245) 

 does not mention A. uwjuicHlarh at all, but says of A.ajfinis: "g 

 Ongie interne des tarses anterieurs arme d'un fort dent aigue." 



A.H there is probably no doubt but that the specimens on which 

 both these species were originally described were Scandinavian, I was 

 anxious to obtain authentic examples from that country. This, 

 however, proved to be a matter of some difficulty, as A. a (finis 

 especially seems to be a rare species there. Finally, however, through 

 the kindness of Prof. W. Y. Sjostat, of Stockholm, I have had the 

 opportunity of examining Swedish specimens both of A. affinis and 

 A. nntiaicidaris. The latter differs in no respect from British 

 examples of the species, and, as the specimens of the former were 

 females, I was unable to verify the male characteristics as given by 

 Thompson. There are, however, slight differences observable between 

 the Swedish form and the A. affinis as known from Dumfries. The 



