i9o«. 179 



in the generality of other species, mid and hind tibiae each with one 

 bristle on the outer-side, halteres blackish, and knew only females ; 

 this would seem to indicate females of trinervis, Beck., more than as 

 Schiner thought probable females of nigricornis, ^gg., {=opaca, Mg.). 



The species described by Becker as opaca is evidently the same 

 as that standing in our List under that name ( = perennis, Meig.) as 

 is proved by his figures of the genitalia and wing ; our List must 

 therefore be corrected by adding P. peremiis, Mg., and placing nigri- 

 cornis^ ^gg., as a synonym of opaca, Mg. With regard to nigricornis 

 I would call attention to the fact that the majority of specimens I 

 have seen, including all those in Kowarz's Collectinn, have no bristle 

 on the hind tibia near the middle which the species was described as 

 bearing, this may indicate another species, or be only a variation, in 

 either case it does not affect the synonymy, as in the type specimen 

 of opaca the bristle is present as described by Egger. 



Newmarket : July, 1906. 



Carpophilus sexpustidatus, F., restored to the British List. — Amongst a lot of 

 hitherto undetermined beetles I found recently a fine specimen of this species. 

 The card to which it is affixed bears the date " 23.3.94." Referring to my diary I 

 find that on this day, being Good Friday, our local Naturalists' Society made an 

 excursion to Edlington and Wadworth Woods, near Doncaster. The season was a 

 very backward one, the trees and hedgerows quite bare, and the grasses and other 

 vegetation showing little sign of spring. The day, however, was beautifully fine. 

 My energies were directed to bark under which I have no doubt the specimen in 

 question was found. On submitting it to my friend Dr. Corbett, he confirmed my 

 determination, and surprised me by producing another specimen labelled " Sandall 

 Beat, 18.3.04." Dr. Corbett tells me it was found under the bark of an elm. This 

 capture is interesting for two reasons : first, as showing that the species is not 

 confined to one locality, the two woods being fully four miles apart in a straight 

 line ; secondly, the almost identical time of the year at which both specimens were 

 taken. Respecting its inclusion in the British List there has been a considerable 

 fluctuation of opinion. Murray (Trans. Linn. Soc, xxiv, 386, plate 32, fig. 12) 1864, 

 says : " not uncommon in Britain." Crotch does not mention it in the first edition 

 of his list, but includes it amongst the " doubtfully indigenous " in the second 

 edition, in which opinion he was followed by Rye (1866). In Dr. Sharp's second 

 edition (1883) it is -included without question, but Sharp and Fowler (1893), and 

 Beare and Donisthorpe (1904) relegate it to the list of introduced species. The 

 present records should restore it to its old place in the British List, the conditions 

 under which both specimens were found leaving no room for doubt as to their 

 being truly indigenous.— E. Q-. Bayford, 2, Rockingham Street, Barnsley : July, 

 1906. 



