RETROSPECT OF A COLEOPTERIST FOR 1911. 189 



and Some Allied Species" {loe. cit., p. 208). In the first of these two 

 articles Mr. Edwards refers to the advantage of using as a differential 

 character a certain extremely fine irrorate punctulation found on the 

 elytra of many of the females of this genus, a character first pointed 

 out by Gerhardt in 1877. Mr. Edwards also makes use, to a certain 

 extent, of the male genitalia as a specific character. He gives a diagram 

 showing the male genitalia of three species — xtn'atu^, ivehnckei, and 

 imwacHlatiix. A comparative table of all the British species of the 

 genus is given, and details of each of the species. Mr. Edwards 

 has elevated to specific rank certain varieties, and gives a 

 reason why he has adopted this course. I confess I cannot quite 

 see my way to accept his conclusions. How difficult the whole 

 problem is will be realised from the following facts. Mr. 

 Newbery introduced immaculatus, Gerh., into our list a short time 

 ago ; Mr. Edwards points out that the insects supposed to represent 

 this species were as a matter of fact nehnckei : then again in the latest 

 European catalogue two of Mr. Edwards' species are considered to be 

 varieties only, heydeni, Wehncke, is a variety of riijicollis, and 

 welinckei , Gerh., is a variety of ininmcidatiis, Gerh. Herr Ganglbauer 

 on the other hand, though he agrees with the European catalogue 

 as regards hei/daii, considers both viiinaciilatus and urJinckei to be 

 merely varieties of flKviatilis. All this disagreement clearly 

 points to the fact that the characters, relied upon for separating the 

 allied species in this troublesome little group, are very unstable. 

 Mr. Balfour Browne, who has been working at the genus, and has 

 introduced a species new to science^ — Halipliis nnuiax {loc. cit., p. 153), 

 apparently also disagrees with some of the conclusions to which 

 Mr. Edwards has come, and states that he intends to write a paper 

 upon this group of the genus. In discussing fuhiadliH, Mr. Edwards 

 says that both Gerhardt and Wehncke state that in this species the 

 elytra of the female are without punctulation (I have Erichson's 

 original description before me and there is no reference to this 

 punctulation), but that his, Mr. Edwards', English specimens do have 

 the apical portion of the elytra punctulate. The whole evidence as 

 to the correct identification of these specimens is I must say 

 somewhat doubtful. It appears to me very undesirable to take a 

 description of a species and make it agree with a particular insect 

 by simply asserting that the original describer omitted to notice 

 certain important structural difterences, especially when a continental 

 specimen, received from a dealer, is taken as a type, though there 

 is no evidence that the specimen was a type at all. 



In his second paper, Mr. Edwards deals with a group of the genus 

 Ceuthor/n/nchiis, which has always been troublesome to workers at this 

 genus. He discusses the value of the secondary sexual characters and 

 their use in separating these closely allied species. He gives a table 

 showing how the four species of the group may be separated, and is of 

 opinion that three species occur in Great Britain, riz., iiiariiinatna, 

 Payk. ; pnuctiiier, Gyll. ; and mulleri, Thoms. {= rottoulatus, Bris.). 

 Canon Fowler in his Cul. Brit. Id. was of the opinion that the last of 

 these three insects was a doubtful species. Mr. Edwards also shows 

 conclusively that Ceuthorhipichidiiis diatinctus, Bris., is merely a form 

 of )nartii)tatii>>, having the funiculus of the antennas six-jointed, and 

 that occasionally an aberration is met with having the funiculus of one 



