( iii ) 



" G-melin, in his edition (xiii.) of Syst. Nat. Linne, Tom i., 

 part iv., p. 2088, No. 230, gives the name of fiavipes to an 

 insect in Leske's Museum, copying Zschach's description in 

 Karsten's 'Museum Leskianum,' p. 49, No. 50. Donovan, 

 in Nat. Hist. Brit. Insects (1806), xi., fig. 891, gives a good 

 figure, calling it Gryllus fiavipes, Ginel., but makes the 

 mistake of attributing its appearance in the Syst. Nat. to 

 Linne instead of Gmelin. This figure and the specimens 

 which are labelled fiavipes, G-mel., in the Brit. Mus. Brit. 

 Coll. and the Dublin Nat. Mus., are to be referred to Gryllus 

 (Locusta) grossus, Linne, Syst. Nat., ed. xii., p. 702, now 

 placed in Fieber's genus Mecostethus of the Acridiodea, Dono- 

 van does not mention grossus, Linne, though both Zschach 

 and Gmelin include it. Stephens, in Illustr. Brit. Ent. 

 Mandib., vi. (1835), p. 21, gives a good description, and says 

 that fiavipes is not uncommon in marshes in this country, 

 and supposes, from the silence of continental authors, that it 

 is peculiar to Britain. Strange to say, he quotes Berkenhout, 

 in Synopsis Nat. Hist. Gt. Brit, aud Ireland, i. (1789), p. 112, 

 No. 7, for grossus, Linne ; but says ' Berkenhout gives this as 

 British, but I presume improperly, as I have never seen an 

 indigenous example.' It seems evident, however, that 

 Berkenhout's description refers to one or more of our common 

 species, probably of the genus Stenobothrus. The Brit. Mus. 

 and Dublin specimens are, I believe, British, and Mr. 

 M'Lachlan has one taken a few years ago in the fen district. 



" Then comes the modern muddle in the synomymy. 

 Leopold Fischer, in Orth. Europ. (1853), p. 395, gives fiavipes, 

 Gmel., of Donovan (teste Steph.), and fiavipes, Stepb., as 

 synonymous with Pachytylus cinerascens, Fabr., but does not 

 seem to have had Donovan's figure to refer to. Adam White, 

 in compiling his list, Brit. Mus. Lists, xvii., 1855, copies 

 Fischer's mistake, although, I believe, he must have had 

 Donovan's figure and also specimens of cinerascens, Fabr., at 

 his disposal ; and be also gives grossus, Linne, as a doubtful 

 British species. Brunner v. Wattenwyl, in his Prodr. der 

 Europ. Orth. (1882), p. 173, also seems to have simply 

 copied Fischer. 



" So the synonymy ought to read ; — 



