1906.] 277 



the distribution of the two species as they are probably mixed in 

 many collections. The tarsal characters of the (^ distinguish the two 

 species readily, but in the ? the characters are much more difficult 

 to seize, 



Halicfus semipunctulatus, Schenck. (Ent. Mo. Mag., xl, p. 11). 



This little species has only been taken, so far as I know, by 

 Mr. E. B. Nevinson, who discovered it at Lyme Regis in July, 1903. 

 It should follow pauxiUus in our list, to which, and to fuhncornis, it 

 is pretty closely allied, but may be distinguished by the following 

 characters. 



It maj be known from both by the wider face and the paler margins of the 

 abdominal segments. From fuJvicornis the J may be known by the short antennae, 

 the hairs on the ventral segments, and by the less rugose propodeum with less sharp 

 brow ; the $ by the propodeum, which lacks the prominent lateral angles, by the 

 less convex abdomen, and the more punctured basal segment. 



From pauxillus the J may be known by the form of the abdominal segments, 

 which are not impressed at the base as in pauxiUus, and by the sharp brow of the 

 propodeum. The $ by the entire raised apical margin of the propodeum, and the 

 less strongly marked apical depressions of the abdominal segments. 



Halicfus suhaurafiis, Rossi = fframineus, Smith. 



I am following Mr. A If ken in this identification. There is, 

 I think, no doubt that he is right. 



(^To be continued) . 



PSORA OP AC A, Mg., and PEORA PERENNIS, Mg. 

 BY J. E. COLLIN, F.E.S. 



In the genus Fliora a small group of species with the bristles 

 on the frons all reclinate, have usually been separated from the rest 

 by having only three distinct thin veins to the wing, the axillary vein 

 being either abbreviated, indistinct, or absent ; to this group belong 

 P. opaca, Mg., and P. perennis, Mg , the latter considered by Becker, 

 in his recent excellent Monograph of the European Species, to be a 

 synonym of the former ; none of the species are by any means 

 common, and as the sexes differ considerably in the characters made 

 use of for separating the species, it has always been difficult to name 

 female specimens. Becker himself experienced this difficulty, and in 

 his table of species gave no characters by which one might separate 



