64 Eev. T. A. Marshall's monograph of 



Parasitic on Ptilinus pectinicornis, L., and may be 

 taken on old posts and rails perforated by that insect. 

 My specimens are from Cheltenham and Leicester. 

 Others are from Fulham, Maldon, Norfolk, and Yorkshire. 

 According to Eatzeburg also reared from china ptinoides, 

 Marsh., by Nordlinger ; and by Hartig and Ferris from 

 Ptilinus costatus, Gyll., in old willow-trunks. 



VI. PAMBOLIDES. 

 Head transverse, occiput margined ; abdomen sessile (or petio- 

 lated), with only two apparent segments, the suturiform articula- 

 tion being effaced, and the 4th and following segments retracted 

 beneath the 3d ; <? apterous or winged, in the latter case with two 

 cubital areolets, the anal nervure interstitial (c/. Subfam. VIII.) ; ? 

 apterous, the terebra exserted. 



This curious group is distinguished from most others 

 by the biarticulate structure of the abdomen. It is in- 

 cluded among the Hecaholides by Forster (Verh. pr. 

 Eheinl., 1862, p. 237), but as it has little in common 

 with that section except the number of cubital areolets, 

 I prefer for the present to consider it as a separate sub- 

 family, including 3 genera, Pamholus, Hal., Arrhaphis, 

 Euthe, and Dvmeris, Euthe. The two first genera are 

 not yet known as indigenous ; Dimeris is represented by 

 a few females. Arrhaphis, Euthe (Stett. Zeit., 1854, 

 p. 346) differs from the other two in having the abdomen 

 petiolated, and the author remarks that it should stand 

 next to Calyptus, Hal. {Brachistes, Wesm.) among the 

 Cyclostomi, though in his collection it is associated with 

 Dimeris. The identity of Pamholus $ with Dimeris ? 

 is maintained by Forster {lib. cit., p. 282) ; but this is 

 not in accordance with the observations of Fitch, who in 

 1883 inspected Euthe's collection, just before its removal 

 to South Kensington, with a view to the settlement of 

 this question, and found it to contain several allied 

 and unpublished species, including males of Dimeris 

 diverse from Pamholus. Without confidently asserting 

 that the two genera in question are not identical, he 

 concluded that at all events Pamholus higlumis, Hal., ^ 

 is not the same species as Dimeris mira, Euthe, <? ? ; 

 and this is sufficient so far as the British Fauna is con- 

 cerned. It may be useful to reproduce Fitch's notes so 

 far as to indicate the resources to be found in the Euthian 

 collection, whenever anyone may be disposed to attempt 

 a revision of this subfamily. 



