NETT BRITISH SPECIES, ETC., IN 1873. Ill 



Mag. of Nat. Hist, xiii (1844), p. 210, sep. copy, 

 p. 15. 

 ? oiytropis, Gebler, in Schon. Gen. et Spec. Cure, i 

 (1833), p. 67 ; Allard, Petites Nouvelles Entomolo- 

 giques, No. 6 ; id. Beii. Ent. Zeitschr., xiii, p. 330 ; 

 E. C. Rye, Ent. Mo. Mag., ix, p. 191, note. 



M. Allard, supplementing Lis " Etude sur le groupe de^ 

 Bruchites," observes that the true Bruchus loti, Payk., 



o 



(Fahr.) Sch., does not exist in French collections, or, 

 indeed, in any collection that he has seen ; and it is to be 

 inferred from his remarks that B. oxytropis usually repre- 

 sents it. B. lotl, according to him, is to be distinguished 

 from the latter by its punctiform scutellum being covered 

 with very dense pubescence, which is continued on the 

 suture, and by its general pubescence being more sparse. 



As far as British examples go, I may observe that none 

 of my own supposed exponents of B. loti are reconcileable 

 with M. AUard's characters above mentioned; and, on re- 

 ferring to the late Mr. Walton's notes (/. c), I find that 

 B. loti, Payk., is only quoted with a note of interrogation, 

 and B. lathyri adopted for the insect. Our common British 

 species, from Lathy rus pratensis, is certainly rightly re- 

 ferred to B. lathyri; but Stephens, /. c, records both it and 

 loti as British, especially quoting the dense patch of griseous 

 pile near the scutellum of the latter, which he states to occur 

 on Lotus corniculatus at Hampstead, Bristol, and Hertford. 

 Unfortunately it was too frequent a habit of this author to 

 affix the right characters to the wrong insect. It remains 

 to be seen whether we really possess the true B, loti, and 

 whether oxytropis, Schon., and lathyri, Steph., are identical; 

 but, of the two last, under any circumstances, lathyri has 

 priority. 



