158 [J»iy. 



correctly) two (^ J near Colchester, but he failed to find a ? corres- 

 ponding to them. I have never seen to my knovs^ledge a $ called 

 tseniatus, either British or foreign, and Dr. Enslin tells me he has 

 none in his collection, but thinks that a $ which he has seen (deter- 

 mined by Konow) was a more slender looking msect than Mr. Morley's 

 — sent to him by me for inspection. I do not venture, therefore, as 

 yet to unite tinctipennis 'i with tseniatus ^ ; but I hope that collectors, 

 in the Eastern counties especially, will be on the look out for these 

 forms, and provide materials for a futui'e solution of this question. 



Mega/pterus, C. — I have seen the " type " at South Kensington, 

 and Mr. Waterhouse kindly had its " saw " photographed for me (the 

 latter is figured, but not quite correctly, in the Monograph). Both 

 type and saw agree precisely with Konow's carmatus, of which I have 

 both British and German specimens determined by the author. As 

 Mr. Cameron's name has priority, I retain it. 



Fumosus, Zadd. — I retain temporarily for this insect the name 

 which has been employed for it by Continental writers. Ultimately no 

 doubt it must be re-named, since the fumosns of Stephens is a 

 different species altogether — the black form of sangtdnicoUis, Kl. 

 There are difficulties, however, about substituting any of the names 

 which have been regarded as synonyms of fumosns, Zadd. ; and until 

 these difficulties, and also the question as to its relation to other forms 

 with the same peculiai- type of saw, have been cleared up, I think it 

 ])est to acquiesce in the name at present generally applied to it. 



The species has been sent to me from Scotland, but I cannot find 

 it described in the Monograph. As I have already said it is not 

 Mr. Cameron's tindipennis. Nor is it his megaj^terns, nor his oblongus. 



Nigratus, Miill. — This name was revived by Konow. • The species 

 is well known under Hartig's name fissus, which well describes the 

 chief character of its ^ . It seems to be widely distributed, and not 

 at all imcommon in this country. 



Ohlongus, C. — This species was supposed by Konow to be the 

 hrevicornis of Zaddach (7iec. Thomson). Unless, however, Zaddach's 

 fio-ure of the " saw " is extraordinarily and — for him — most imusually 

 incorrect, the identification seems to me quite impossible. I therefore 

 retain Mr. Cameron's name. (I have never seen a Dolerus with a saw 

 at all like that figured by Zaddach as hrevicornis. The saw of ohlongiis 

 is figured, not quite exactly, but recognisably, in the Monograph). 

 Mr. Malloch has taken the species at Bonhill, in Dumbartonshire. (A 

 character mentioned by Zaddach as distinguishing his only specimen 

 of hrevicornis, viz., large white spines at the apices of the tarsal joints 



