1873. 1G5 



23. P. testacea. A Stenophylax which Wallengren leaves uncertain at present. 



24. P. pilosttJa* A collective name for Limnophilus exirJeaiiw, McLach., and L. 

 sparsus, Curtis. 



25. P. brevis,* ^ PJiacopteryx brevipennis, Curtis. 



26. P. stigmatella. An Apatania, and from the sketch of the appendages given by 

 Wallengren, I think there is no donbt it is identical with A. frigida, McLach., 

 which name must sink as a synonym. My types of the latter are from Alten 

 in Norway. 



27. P. pttberula, = Stenojjhylax picicornis, Victet. 



28. P. guttifera* = S. steUatus, Curtis. 



29. P. inter punctata* = Halesiis digitatus, Schrank. 



80. P. concentrica* = Stenophylax hieroglypMcus, Stephens. 



31. P. fusca* ^ Limnophilus fumigatus, G-ermar ; but the var. b, 'lapponica,* is 

 an AnaboUa of the same group as No. 22. 



32. P. discoidea* = L. bipunctatus, Curtis ; but there is also a specimen of L. 



affinis among the types. The description appears to me to agree with L. bi- 

 punctatus. 

 83. P. villosa,* = Chcetopteryx tuberculosa, Pictet. 



Many of these determinations had been previously correctly made by authors, 

 from the descriptions. The nomenclature of only two British species is affected, 

 viz. : — our so-called Limnophilus borealis, which was not known to Zetterstedt, and 

 L. striola, Kolenati, which takes the prior name of nigriceps, Zett. 



I express my thanks to Pastor Wallengren for his permission to make any use 

 1 thought proper of his notes. — E. McLachlan, Lewisham : '7th October, 1873. 



Notes on a British bug. — I took pains to show (see p. 91) how the insects 

 named Oncotylus tanaceti and Macrocoleits sordidus by Mr. Scott did not agree 

 with the continental descriptions ; and I stated my conviction that the two insects so 

 named and described by Mr. Scott belonged to one and the same species. I think 

 it woidd have been satisfactory if Mr. Scott had shown how his two species differ 

 from one another, and explained how it was they did not agree with the continental 

 descriptions. May I ask him to do this ? Also, as he says the genera are so distinct 

 to an experienced eye, may I ask him to express the differences between Macro- 

 coleits, Oncotylus and Tinicephalus, so that unexperienced eyes may thereby profit ? 



As to Mr. Scott's remarks. The evidence I show that Mr. Scott has named 

 specimens in our collections under two names, which are referable to the same 

 species, is surely clear. He owns the label on the specimen in Mr. Douglas's box 

 to be in his own handwriting (I must consider this fair presumptive evidence that 

 he named it), and he owns his tanaceti to bo my species from the Ononis, so that if 

 my views are correct (and of course I speak from my own point of view), he has 

 named the same species in our collections under two distinct names. Mr. Scott 

 clings very firmly to Dr. Fieber's authority, yet, in 'British Hemiptera,' Oncotylus 

 pilosus was described as new under his sanction, and subsequently proved to be 

 Macrocoleus solitarius, notwithstanding the generic characters are so easily de- 

 tected by an experienced eye. Lopomorphus ferrugatus (var.) was, under the same 



