200 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



than a brachypterous form of F. auricularia. But it is custom- 

 arily regarded as a good species, since it is only known from Italy, 

 and no brachypterous specimen of the much-examined F. auricu- 

 laria has ever been recorded from any other country, at least to 

 my knowledge. In the structure of the body, coloration (a quite 

 unimportant feature), and armature of the forceps, F. silana is 

 otherwise indistinguishable from the common earwig. 



Now when collecting at Compton Bay, in the Isle of Wight, 

 in the summer of 1903, I took, among a lot of ordinary F. auri- 

 cularia crawling in a heap of cowdung, two females with aborted 

 wings : it seems necessarj' therefore to refer them to F. silana, 

 hitherto regarded as a rare species confined to Italy. 



The true explanation is probably that we have here the same 

 dimorphism occuring sporadically in the common earwig, and 

 that for some reason it is a more frequent phenomenon in Italy 

 than elsewhere. 



It is highly desirable that more material be obtained, and I 

 hope and trust collectors will keep a sharp eye open in this coun- 

 try, and on the Continent, for specimens of the common earwig 

 having reduced wings. 



There is another possible, but improbable, explanation. 



There is in the Mediterranean province another pair of species, 

 which stand in the same relation to each other as F. auricularia 

 and F. silana: these are F. decijnens, Gene, and F. lurida, Fischer. 

 They both differ from F. auricularia and F. silana in the absence 

 of the strong tooth at the end of the dilation of the male 

 forceps. F. dccijncns is brachypterous, and ranges in the western 

 Mediterranean lands ; F. lurida is macropterous, and occurs 

 throughout the Levant. 



The females of these four species are practically indistinguish- 

 able, so there is the possibility that these two females of mine 

 may be referable to F. decipiens. But as that is a purely me- 

 ridional species, this is very improbable. The discovery of the 

 male would at once settle the question. 



I called attention to this interesting problem in the Ent. Mo. 

 Mag. 1907, p. 173, hoping that it would stimulate search, but the 

 enquiry has produced no results. 



May I appeal to Coleopterists, Hemipterists, and other col- 

 lectors who use the sweep-net, to look out for brachypterous 

 specimens of the common earwig and to send them to me ? 



Dover: January, 1911. 



