306 Mr. R. McLachlan on 



R. meridionalis, Ed. Pictet. This Pyrenean species, 

 which I have not seen, much resembles venusta in the 

 form of the lobe and appendices, according to the descrip- 

 tion and figui'es ; the penis and sheaths are not mentioned. 

 In size and colour it should be abundantly distinct. 



B,. intermedia, n. sp. Somewhat intermediate between 

 aurata and venusta, but approaching nearer to the latter 

 in general appearance ; the fore-wings pale, with indis- 

 tinct grayish markings and pale dorsal blotch. The 

 dorsal lobe not dilated in the middle, nor acuminate ; 

 the second joint of the app. inf. furcate, the branches 

 being very unequal ; the upper short and thin, the lower 

 longer and stout, scarcely divergent, and nearly straight; 

 the penis is of a very extraordinary form, broad, and form- 

 ing a keel above, the sides deflexed, produced into a spine 

 at the apex with a small tooth above, the angles of 

 the deflexed portion very acute ; the sheaths are slender 

 and strongly curved, the extreme apex being directed 

 upwards; there is no produced base whence these parts 

 arise (PI. XIV. fig. 10) . Of this very distinct species I 

 possess two males from Zeller, one from Upper Carinthia, 

 the other from Bruck, in Styria. 



R. ohliterata, McLachlan, and R. munda, McLachlan, 

 apparently peculiar to Britain, can be readily recognised 

 from the figures of the appendices in my " Trichoptera 

 Britannica.^' 



R. stigmatica, Kolenati, is quite unknown to me. It 

 has furcate app. inf., but the description is too little 

 precise to be satisfactory. 



R. glareosa, McLachlan. I now give a figure of the 

 remarkable appendices of this species (PI. XIV. fig. 17). 

 In my description (Stett. Zeit. 1867, p. 62) the 

 words " appendicibus superioribus " are an obvious mis- 

 print for " appendicibus inferioribus." 



The number of described European species of Rhyaco- 

 phila is now fifteen, excluding, of course, the group of 

 umbrosa (to which it has been proposed to apply Kolenati's 

 generic term Crunophila ;)^ viz.: — torrentium, Pictet; 



* It will probably be better to defer the generic separation of these 

 forms sine die : the most important differential character is the absence 

 in the larva of umhrosa of external respiratory filaments ; hence our 

 knowledge of the earlier states of both groups mil require much further 

 extension before a correct idea can be formed. The other character of 

 the presence or absence of the dorsal lobe in the (J insect is rendered 

 unsatisfactory by the existence of jR. munda, glareosa, and North American 

 forms. 



