84 [September, 



NOTE ON HYDRO BIUS FUSCIPES. 

 BY D. SHARP, M.B. 



In tlie Bulletin entomologique of the Aniiales de la Societe 

 entomolqgique de France, 1883, p. exxxi, there is a note by C. Q-. 

 Thomson, of which the following is a translation : 



" Htdeobius rusciPES. — Under this name there are at present 

 confounded two different species ; one, for which I preserve the an- 

 cient name fuscipes of Linnaeus, is oblong-oval, not strongly convex, 

 and has always the tibiae and the extremity of the femora reddish- 

 yellow ; the other, which I call picicrus, is especially smaller and 

 shorter, notably more convex behind, with the tibiae as well as the ex- 

 tremity of the femora pitchy, and the hind angles of the thorax form 

 a more obtuse right angle. The diagnoses may be established thus : 



"H. FUSCIPES. — Supra olivaceo-niger, cequaliter leviter convexus 

 genuhus, tihiis tarsisqueferrugineis^prothorace angulis posticis suhrectis 



"H. PiciCEUS, mihi. — Supra olivaceo-niger, prcBsertim postice con- 

 vexus^ hreviter ovatus, genuhus tihiisque nigro-ficeis, tarsis ferrugineis , 

 prothorace angulis posticis ohtusiusculis. 



" PrcGcedente paulo oninor, hrevior, et magis convexus, tibiarwn 

 colore ohscuriore, elytris striis fortius punctatis, prothorace juxta scu 

 tellum utrinque evidentius sinuato, angulis posticis minus reef is distinc 

 tus^ 



These two forms have long been distinguished by British ento 

 mologists, and attention was directed to them by Mr. Eye in a nob 

 published in 1871 in Ent. Mo. Mag., vii, p. 36, the var. a of Mr. Eyei 

 I. c, being the picicrus, Thoms. (Mr. Eye being, however, in error i] 

 stating that it has no larger irregular punctures on the alternate in 

 terstices), and considered by our countryman to be probably th 

 suhrotundus of Steph. (111. Mand., ii, p. 128). So far as the North o 

 Europe goes, the two forms may be possibly distinct, for I find that 

 though the characters mentioned by the talented Swede are variable 

 there is another more important one to which he has not alluded, vizi 

 that in picicrus, Th., the pubescence of the hind femora is not qui! 

 so extensive, and the punctuation of which it is the accompanimei 

 not quite so dense and fine ; but I do not think the two forms wi 

 hold good as distinct throughout the whole of the extensive area <i| 

 the palaearctic and nearctic regions occupied by II.fuscip)es. 



The careful examination of aquatic beetles reveals, however, sl 

 much reason for supposing that creatures excessively similar to od 



