A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF BRITISH WATERBUGS. 299 



" black ") ! (/3) reddish brown on posterior lobe of pronotum, 

 elytra, &c. ; so ruddy, in fact, that I was deceived for a few 

 moments into thinking I had obtained a supply of G. asper. 



The characters, therefore, given by Saunders do not altogether 

 hold good, i.e. " antennae ferruginous . . . elytra black . . . legs 

 ferruginous," &c. ; the venter also is often flavous, the pale colour 

 narrowing towards the base. 



Fig. 24 represents the (male) apical parts of the abdomen 

 (beneath). 



N.B. — This species is not, as stated in the third and fourth 

 editions of Puton's Catal. Hem. palearct., G. lateralis, Schummel, 

 that species having (as remarked previously) a canaliculate 

 venter. 



7. G. gibbifer, Schumm. 

 Common and well distributed in the South of England, but 

 not recorded from Scotland and Ireland. 



Fig. 25 represents the apical segments (male). 



8. G. lacustris (Linn.) Stal. 



= variabilis, Curtis. 



The type of the genus, fixed by Fabricius, 1794. Distributed 

 apparently well over the United Kingdom, but I have few precise 

 localities. It has a great range over Europe, and I have examined 

 a specimen from Japan which I cannot separate from the ordinary 

 British individuals. The apical segments in the male are little 

 different from those in G. gibbifer ; fig. 26 represents those of 

 the female. 



The type of the species does not appear to be extant. The 

 original description of Cimex lacustris, Linn., in Syst. Nat. 

 ed. x. p. 450 (1758) is very indefinite, but excludes rufoscutellatus, 

 thoracicus, asper, and costce.* Poda (1761, Mus. Ins. Grsec. 

 p. 60) refers to Play's figure (an atrocity, but it cannot well refer 

 to anything but lacustris or argentatus). Eeuter (1888, Act. Soc. 

 Sci. Fennic. xv. p. 364 [sep.] ) confidently refers Poda's description 

 (as also that of Scopoli, Ent. Carn. 1763, p. 136) to lacustris, but I 

 must confess I can see absolutely nothing distinctive about it. 

 Houttuyn's description (1765) I have not seen, but, as Pieuter 

 refers it to rufoscutellatus, it need not be considered. In fact, all 

 the descriptions up to that of Fabricius, 1794 (not the same 

 species as that described by the latter author in 1775), are either 

 antagonistic to the original description, or do not elucidate it ; 

 so that it may be considered as definitely fixed by Fabricius, 

 1794. This is fortunate, as this is the same interpretation as 



:: Linne's references to other authors, i.e. Ray, Bradley, See., imply these 

 species ; but Linne says ''supra nigra " without qualification. 



