468 APPENDIX. 
Phiceophthorus rhododactylus, Brit. Cat. Vol. v. p. 423.— 
Just after the last sheets of the Scolytide had gone to press I received 
the following communication from Mr. W. F. Blandford, and am glad 
to have the opportunity of inserting it:— 
“‘T find that in the two European species of Phleophthorus, Woll., 
namely P. rhododactylus, Marsh., and P. spartii, Noérd., there has been 
confusion of nomenclature. The insect called abroad P. spartii is our 
yv. Marsham’s P. rhododactylus (its proper and prior name); while the 
P. rhododactylus of the Continent is unknown here and does not really 
possess any separate name at all, 
‘** The proper synonymy will be as follows :— 
** Phloeophthorus rhododactylus.x—Ips rhododactylus, Marsham, Ent. 
Brit. Col. p. 58. 
“ H, rhododactylus, Gyll. Ins. Suec. iv. 619 nec. Ratzeb; Chapuis ; 
Hichhoff. 
‘* Phloeophthorus perfoliatus, Woll. Ins. Mader. p. 301. Pl. 6, Fig. 1. 
** Hylesinus spartii, Nord. Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1848, p. 250. 
“ Hylesinus tarsalis, Foerst. Verhandl. Nat. Ver. Rheinl. 1849, 383, 
* Phleophthorus spartit, Chapuis, Hichhoff, etc. 
« Phleophthorus Chapuisii, mihi. 
“ FH, rhododactylus, Ratz., Forstius. I.p. 178. Pl. 7, Fig. 18. 
« P. rhododactylus, Chapuis, Synopsis, p. 48. 2. v. Thomson, v, Hich- 
hoff, v. Lowendal. 
“T hope to publish a note of this in one of the foreign papers. If 
you have time to get in the synonymy at all into your book it would be 
convenient, 
“‘T may add that I have seen the original specimens in Kirby’s collec- 
tion from which Marsham described his.’’ 
It is evident that a considerable amount of work yet remains to be 
done among the Scolytide, and we may hope that Mr. Blandford will be 
enabled to clear up many more doubtful points regarding them. 
In the Biologia Centrali-Americana, Coleopt. Vol. iv. Dr. Sharp is 
doing work on the Rhynchophora of Central America which will help 
to clear up several unsatisfactory points in our present classification of 
the group: I have only had the opportunity of seeing a small portion of 
this work (Pt. 3, March 1891, pp. 81, e¢ segqg.); the following remarks 
regarding the sub-fam. Otiorrhynchine are of general interest :— 
“The family is defined in a satisfactory manner by the existence of 
a scar on each of the mandibles, due to the detachment of a peculiar 
pair of cutting instruments, supposed to be used by the insect for free- 
ing itself when emerging from the pupal stage (vide Vol. V. p. 170). I 
propose to divide the family into two divisions, consisting (1.) of the 
apterous, (II.) of the winged Otiorrhynchine, 
> 
4, 
