154 [December, 



Ohserrations on some Brit'tsh species of Dascillicliv, with description of a ne^v 

 species of Cyphon. — For some years past, I have diligently collected the species of 

 Cyphon and the allied genera, and have thus accumulated a large mass of material in 

 this very difficult and little attractive group. I have lately submitted this material 

 to examination, and I give these observations as the result. The works that I have 

 made use of for the purpose are chiefly those of Kiesenwetter, Thomson, and Tournier 



1. IlELODEa BoHEMANNi, Mann. It has been suggested by Miilsant and Crotch 



that this is not a good species ; biit, on the other hand, Tournier accepts and 

 maintains it, in whicli view I feel convinced that ho is wrong. I have two 

 specimens whicli I have no doubt are to be referred to Bohemanni, and I am 

 quite convinced they are only a variety of livida. The characters given by 

 Tournier do not accord very satisfactorily with those given by Thomson. The 

 Swedish author, after mentioning one or two slight characters to differentiate 

 Sohematini from livida, adds the words " tantum distincta ;" so that it would 

 appear he has not much confidence in the species. Tournier maintains the 

 species chiefly because of a difference in the thorax, and of the abdominal fovese 

 in the male. The development and form of the thorax I find, however, to be 

 remarkably inconstant in both H. livida and H. minuta ; and, as regards the 

 abdominal fovea, one has only to look at the plate in which these are repre- 

 sented by Tournier to be astonished that he shoidd have attached much impor- 

 tance to so slight a difference in insects with such soft and pliable covering. 

 I may add that my specimens of H. livida do not agree with the figure of either 

 livida or Bohemanni as given by Toiirnier ; so that if Bohemanni be main- 

 tained, our British specimens would have to be manufactured probably into a 

 new species. 



2. Cyphon kitidulfs, Thoms. This species has been discriminated by Thomson 



from the coarctatus of the older authors, chiefly on account of a coarser and 

 more distant punctuation of the elytra ; but many specimens come very close 

 to C. coarctatus. According to my experience, C. nitidulus is much commoner 

 than coarctatus. 



3. C. FTTSCicoENis, Thoms. Kiesenwetter has recorded that he has observed this 



insect coupled with coarctatus, and considers it the female of that species ; 

 though I have not obsei-ved the insects in cop., I have, from the distribution 

 and resemblance of the two, no doubt that his deduction is as correct as his 

 observation. 



4. C. PALLiDiTENTRis, Thoms. The only characters of importance that distinguish 



this insect from C. nitidulus are just those that distinguish fuscicornis from 

 coarctatus ; and it, therefore, becomes highly probable, that, as fuscicornis ^= 

 ? coarctatus, BO pallidiventris ^ $ nitidulus. I have met with the two latter 

 very often, and have reason to believe that this probability is a certainty. 



5. C. VABiABiLis, Thoms. This is a most variable species in size, colour, form, and 



sculpture ; and the nijriceps of Thomson and Kiesenwetter are, I believe, only 

 varieties of it. I have distributed among my correspondents (under the M. S. 

 name oi pallidiceps) an insect appearing very different from ovd.mvt.vj varialilis. 



