290 THE entomologist's record. 



tion, and we propose to deal with the insects mentioned by Mr. New- 

 bery in the order in which he has treated them. 



Under Class i, insects which should be deleted, Bembidimn lampros, 

 Hbst., var. celere, F., this variety is given in Canon Fowler's British 

 Coleoptcra, and, after consideration, we decided to retain it as a dis- 

 tinct small variety. Ili/biiis nbsiciiriis, Marsh, var. siwdentatus, Schiodt, 

 this also is given in Canon Fowler's book, and is also given in Dr. 

 Ellis's "Liverpool list," p. 211, having been taken at Little Brighton. 

 Mef/acronus forniosm, Gr., was taken in Northumberland, and is recorded 

 in Hardy and Bold's Cataloi/ue of XnrtJiioiiboiand Colcoptera, p. 34 ; this 

 appeared to us to be a trustworthy record. Plnlontlius trossulus, Nord., 

 we do not consider this to be synonymous with nitiritiilna, Er.; one of us 

 has taken the latter species fairly commonly in flood-refuse at Southport, 

 and it is very distinct ; it is also common in the north of Ireland ; its 

 specific differences are discussed in Johnson and Halbert's Lint of Irish 

 Colenptera, p. 654 ; it is treated as a variety in the European " Cata- 

 logue," but it appeared to us to have definite specific characters, and 

 we, therefore, decided to retain it as a species. With regard to Gna- 

 thonciis — (t. naniu'tmsis, Mars., is not a British insect, and must be 

 deleted, and G. punctnlatns, Th., and G. rotimdatiis, Kug., are synony- 

 mous, and therefore G. piinctulatus, Th., should have been omitted 

 from the catalogue; we obtained this information, however, in regard 

 to these points from Mr. Lewis too late to permit of any change in the 

 new catalogue. With regard to Cychramus futuiiada, Heer, and hiteiis, 

 F., we fail to see that Dr. Sharp's note in the Ent. Mo. May., vol. xxv., 

 p. 404, has settled the question that these are sexes of one sjDecies, and 

 we would refer coleopterists to a note by the late Mr. Janson in the 

 Entoniolo(/ist's AiuiHcd for ]861, p. 66; after weighing all the evidence 

 and going very carefully into the matter, Ave came to the decision that 

 these M^ere not sexes of one species. As to the question whether or not 

 Coninomns carinatKs, Gyll., is a synonym of coiistricttis, Gyll., we were 

 unable to come to any definite decision, and therefore decided to leave 

 both names in the catalogue. In the European catalogue they are 

 treated as synonymous, but Canon Fowler has kept them distinct, 

 although he admits that the point is a doubtful one. In regard to 

 Bntchus viciae, 01., Yur.fahraei, Gyll., faliraci is given as a variety of 

 mciae in the "European Catalogue" of 1891, p. 331, and not of 

 ■atomariiis, L. Orcltestes spar.siis, Fabr., rests in our catalogue on the 

 authority of a specimen in the Power collection. Mr. Newbery con- 

 tends that this specimen is only a small form of ilicis, F., but it may 

 be pointed out that M. Brisout confirmed Dr. Power's original identi- 

 fication, and it would have been absurd for us, therefore, to have 

 rejected a species when there is such a marked dift'erence of opinion 

 between two authorities; the same remark applies to the retention of 

 Apion oj)eticitni, Bach. 



In Class ii, Mr. Newbery places insects which he says belong to 

 ancient history, or rather which have not occurred for about fifty years, 

 and the history of which he says is in many cases extremely doubtful. 

 EhantKs adspcrsns, F., the first one, was taken in numbers according to 

 the old records, and the great physical changes which modern drain- 

 age has brought about in the districts in which these insects were taken 

 would quite account for its disappearance ; it may be extinct, there- 

 fore, but it certainly was a British insect. Blediits fcmoralis, Gyll., is 

 also an undoubted liritish insect, and was not erroneously named. Mr. 



