ft THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



opinion that this varietj^ must be allowed for the present to stand. 

 In regard to hrisoHti, Rye, there seems to have been hitherto much 

 coufusion, due to the fact that, in the Entowolotiist's Annual, 1871, p. 67, 

 Mr. R3'e introduced into the British list P.briinnipes, Bris., on the strength 

 of specimens taken by Dr. Sharp at Chatham and Lymington, by 

 himself at Lee Pit, and by Mr. Champion at Gravesend, but in the 

 Ent. Mo. Mag. for 1872, p. 8, he stated that he had, since he made the 

 above record, submitted the specimens to M. Brisout, who stated that 

 thej' were not his brunnipes, but a species new to science, and Mr. Rye 

 then described them as brisouti, sp. nov. These specimens were also 

 submitted to ]\I. Tournier, who was then working at the family, and 

 were declared by him to be new to science. Mr. Rye further stated 

 that he had submitted another specimen from Mr. G. R. Waterhouse's 

 collection to M. Brisout, and that gentleman had informed him that 

 this insect was his brnnnipes. Unfortunatelj', Canon Fowler, in his 

 Coleoptcra of the British Islands, vol. iii., p. 149, appears to have over- 

 looked this correction by Rye of his first note, and has ascribed to 

 brumiipes, Bris., all the records which belonged to brisouti, Rye, and I 

 think this mistake has probably misled continental authors, and 

 apparently Mr. Newbery was not aware of this unfortunate slip of 

 Canon Fowler. Since we have Mr. Rye's statement that M. Brisout 

 himself, who presumably had his own types before him at the time, 

 declared that Mr. Waterhouse's specimen was his brnnnipes, I am of 

 opinion that that species is British and must remain in our list, 

 especially as Mr. Newbery gives no reason for his assumption that the 

 specimen of brunnipes — I would point out it is never anywhere called 

 brnnnipes. Rye — above alluded to is championi, Guill. I am further of 

 opinion that P. brisouti, Rye, which is retained in the latest European 

 catalogue, must also be retained in our list, until by an examination 

 of Mr. Rye's type, which Mr. Newbery has not made, the insects are 

 shown to be only a form of corruscus, Pz. My conclusion is that Mr. 

 Newber}' has introduced two new species to our list — P. hybridns, 

 Flach., and P. cliaiupioni, Guill., that he has wrongfully deleted P. 

 brnnnipes, Bris., and that P. brisouti must also stand for the present, 

 and humberti also as a var. of corruscus, Pz. 



Canon Fowler {Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. xliii., p. 30) expresses his 

 opinion that the specimen upon which Mr. F. Bouskell introduced 

 Aphodius sturmi, Harold {Ent. Pwc, vol. xv., p. 92) is only a small 

 immature 4- nitidulus, F. ; as I have not seen the specimen, I can 

 offer no opinion upon the correctness of the original determination, 

 but for the present the species must be relegated to the doubtful list. 



Mr. Newbery {loc. cit., p. 123) stated that he had submitted speci- 

 mens of Melanotus rufipes, Hbst., and M. castanipes, Pk., to M. Bedel, 

 who was of opinion that they were onlj^ forms of one species, and he 

 further drew attention to the fact that castanipes is sunk as a synonym 

 of rufipes in the latest European catalogue. To my mind this latter 

 fact by no means settles the question, since, in the same catalogue, 

 Cryptohypnus pulchellus, L., and C. sabulicola. Boh., are considered 

 synonjnnous, and this they most certainly are not (see in confirmation 

 of my opinion Mr. Gahan's note on the genus [loc. cit., p. 121] ). I 

 must here raise a respectful protest against this tendency on the part 

 of some of our coleopterists to accept the opinion of some continental 

 authority, who, in many cases, has not seen the original types, as once for 



