20i XHb; KNTOMOLOGlSr's RKCORD. 



winps of a dark coloration." The fi/?ure in the (inhfiu ZeiUchrift is 

 wretched. — M. Gillmer, 2, Schlossplatz, Cothen, Anhah, Germany. 

 June 2inl, 1904. 



AlMPHIDASYS BKTULARIA VAR. DOUBLEDAYARIA NEAR LoNDON. On June 



18th, driving through Mottingham, Kent, I took on a wall, asleep, 

 the black form of Amp/iidasys hetidaria. 1 believe only once before 

 has It been taken in this district. — Jos. F. Green, F.L.H., West Lodge, 

 Blackheath. Junf 19t/,, 1904. 



OLEOPTERA. 



On some doubtful or very rare British Coleoptera. 



By E. A. NEWBERY. 



The appearance of a new and excellent catalogue of British coleop- 

 tera, by Messrs. Beare and Donisthorpe, in which they have had the 

 courage to remove a nnmbei' of doubtful species from the catalogue 

 proper, and place them in a separate list, has led me to believe that an 

 inquiry into the claims of some other species still retained by them 

 will not be without use. I have also appended some notes and refer- 

 ences to a number of other species, about which further information or 

 additional records are highly desirable. The authors of a catalogue 

 are placed in some difficulty, since a name must either be inserted or 

 rejected, and no qualifying note is possible. Many species come thus 

 to be admitted about which the authors are uncertain. Messrs. Beare 

 and Donisthorpe allude to this matter in the preface. 



A local catalogue, whether of a county or more extended region, is 

 an ephemeral work somewhat in the nature of a census, and should, 

 as far as possible, represent the state of knowledge at the time at which 

 it is written. The only question on which much difference of opinion 

 obtains, is as to whether species which have not occurred for a very 

 long time, should be retained, or placed in the list of doubtful insects 

 with a view to their subsequent excision. Many insects still figure in 

 British catalogues, which appear to have no better claim to do so than 

 others, long since excluded, which were recorded by Stephens and 

 other old authors. The insects I propose to consider fall for the most 

 part into three classes. Those of Class I should be deleted altogether. 

 Those of Class II, in my opinion, should be placed in the list of 

 doubtful insects. T^ose of Class III are simply very rare. 



Class I. — Insects which should be deleted for the reasons given 

 below : — Bnnhidiuiii lanipnis, Hbst., var. rch'rc, F., has no character 

 biit its small size to separate it from the type. Ili/bius tibscin-Ks, Marsh, 

 var. fie.nleiitatiis, Schiodt, is, according to continental opinion, a 

 synonym of ohscKrns .• at most it is a form of the S separated by a 

 variable character common to manj' of the Ihftisciilae. Hoinalota crib- 

 riceps, Hhavp = ('aeno)nca piincticollis, Kr. (Fauvel, Rer. Knt. Fr., xxi., 

 159,1901). Mci/acrunus foniwsus, Gv. No trustworthy record. Pliil- 

 onthiis trossiiliia, Nord. Synonymous with niiiritidns, Er.. a very variable 

 species. Gnatlumcus puncti(lata.s, Th. Represented in British collections 

 by small specimens of rotundatns, Kug. ('i/c/i ramus fitwiicola, Heer. — 

 Dr. Sharp [hhit. }[<>. 3/rt//., xxv., 404) points out that ('. lidi'iis, F., and 

 finii/iciila, Heer, are sexes of one species ; there is no doubt that this 

 is correct, ('oninoiiins carinatit^i, Gyll. A synonym of cDitstricttis, GyW. 



