1881. J 71 



Mo. Mag., vol. xvii, p. 235 ; the following others, however, are perhaps worthy of 

 mention : — Trechus lapidosas, of which I found two specimens after a great deal 

 of labour, the species certainly deserving its name. Oxypoda nigrina, Waterhouse 

 (this last I have since found in some numbers in my hot-bed in Lincoln), Diglossa 

 mersa, Phytosus spinifer, a Myllcena, which seems to be intermedia, but appears to 

 have rather longer antennae than that species, Tachyusa uvida (very abundant among 

 shingle below high-water mark), T. sulcata, Bryaxis Waterhousii, Ptenidium 

 punctatum (rather common under sea-weed), and Aleochara mcesta ; this last species 

 is said to be common, but I have never found it so. At Luccombe I found a colony 

 of JEpys marinus under one stone, but could not find another specimen anywhere. 

 At Sandown Otiorhynchus ambiguus was rather common ; Tychius lineatulus was 

 abundant at the roots of Anthyllis, and Ceuthorhynchideus nigro-terminatus rather 

 common on Daucus maritimus ; I found one very large Curculio larva at the roots 

 of Anthyllis, evidently that of Otiorhynchus ligustici, which is found on the spot 

 where I came across it. I could not, however, find the perfect insect. 



Carabidce, owing probably to the lateness of the season, were scarcer than I 

 have ever known them. — W. W. Fowler, Lincoln : July 12th, 1881. 



Remarks on Dr. ~E. Jolys Ccenis maxima. — Mr. Yayssiere in Ann. Sc. Nat., 

 Zool., Jan., 1881, p. 4, note, pointed out a mistake made by me some time ago con- 

 cerning the places of origin of the tracheal-branchiae in Ccenis, which had led me to 

 suppose that their positions in C. maxima differed from those of the corresponding 

 organs in Ccenis (typical). I had previously sent a note to the Magazine (published 

 in the last February number) stating that the examples of C. maxima originally 

 examined by me were all of them defective [all of them had lost the foremost pair 

 of tracheal-branchise] and " that (judging from specimens in a better condition of 

 preservation) the species-was likely to be a real Ccenis." To save space no particulars 

 were entered into ; I was aware of the gill-bearing segments being the same in the 

 insect as in the genus mentioned, but was not sure whether their gills corresponded 

 exactly in structure, or not. For although differences in this respect were obvious 

 in the specimens of Ccenis and C. maxima before me, it seemed quite possible that 

 they might be due to a disparity in grade of the nymphs, and that the gills of more 

 mature nymphs of Ccenis might become conformable to those of C. maxima ; but speci- 

 mens lately captured show that no such change takes place. C. maxima, therefore, does 

 not seem to be a true Ccenis ; yet it does not necessarily follow that it is a Tricorythus. 

 It would be safer to face the fact that the nymph is of undetermined genus, closely 

 akin to Ccenis, — possibly a Tricorythus. My anxiety to avoid jumping to conclusions 

 rather than reach them through the course of actual observation is (it seems) liable 

 to be misinterpreted. The aim of the February note was not (as one correspondent 

 imagined it to have been) to cancel Tricorythus, but to advocate a suspension of 

 judgment about the generical position of C. maxima, pending further investigations. 

 In the absence of evidence sufficient to demonstrate its true rank, little would be 

 gained by citing it as Tricorythus (?) maximus instead of Ccenis maxima, when 

 twelve months hence it might be possible to prove that Tricorythus is as distinct 

 from it as Ccenis. Merely giving names to an animal inadequately known does not 

 further science to any material extent, but is often a hindrance to progress. — 

 A. E. Eaton, Chepstow Road, Croydon ; 6th J»ly. 1881. 



