NEW BRITISH SPECIES, ETC., IX 1861-62. 91 



Mr. Waterhoiise informs me that the differences JDointed out 

 by Mr. Matthews for this species are equally applicable to 

 the insect which the former supposes to be ruhicundus. 



Taken by Mr. Matthews near Gumley, Leicestershire, in 

 the years 1860 — 2, and determined for him by M. Aube 

 ^^ from Dr. Schaums Catalogue,'' but I have as yet been 

 unable to refer to the original description, which does not 

 appear in any of Dr. Schaum.'s papers on ScydmcBni I have 

 seen. 



67. ScYDM^NUs RUBicuNDUS, Schaum, Anal. Entom. 13, 



31; Faii'm. et Lab. Faune Ent. Franc, ii. 348, 7; 

 G. R. Waterhouse, Proc. Ent. Soc. 7 Jan. 1861, 

 Zool. 7375 (1861). 

 N.B. The specific name of this insect does not appear 

 in the Proc. Ent. Soc. or Zool. 

 Comes next after S, elongatulus, MiilL, in our lists. 



68. ScvDMiENUs NANUS, Schaum, Germ. Zeits. f. Ent. 1844, 



471; Wat. Cat. p. 105(1861). 

 exiliSf Schaum. 

 viininius, Chaud. 



69. Cephennium intermedium, Aube, Ann. Soc. Ent. 



Fr. 1859, Bullet, p. 235; Rev. A. Matthews, Zool. 



7976 (1862). 



Mr. Matthews says this species may be known from 



C. thoracicum, MiilL, by its dark colour, smaller thorax, 



more elongate shape, and rather longer antennte ; according 



to the description, however, the shape should be shorter. 



A single specimen found in moss near Silchester, Hants, 

 by i\Ir. Matthews, in July, 1859, and determined for him by 

 M. Fairmaire. 



