98 Mr. F. BalfouivBrowne oit the 



had not seen what he was able to see. The same difference 

 of opinion occurs with leguid to tlie sculpture of the female 

 of H, fulvicollis, Er., which Edwards describes as having the 

 elytra finely punctured across the apex and along the distal 

 half of the suture, while the continental authors all describe 

 it as having the elytra impunctate. 



With regard to the difficulty of using the paper, Edwards 

 describes the sedeagophore in six out of his seven species, 

 saying nothing about it in 11. heydeni ; but, although in five 

 of these it is obviously a character of systematic importance, 

 in H. fulvicollis he describes it as similar to that in //. riiji- 

 col/is — a statement which, if correct, would to my mind reduce 

 the former from specific ratdc. As a matter of fact^ Edwards 

 never saw H . fulvicoUii^ , as I shall show later on. 



Edwards figures the male armature in three species of the 

 seven^ but I found in working out my material that I had 

 dissected out six different types without coming across one 

 which agreed accurately with any of his figures. 



These points, and several other details to which I shall 

 refer in due course, induced me to undertake a re-investi- 

 gation of the group, and, with that end in view, I have 

 collected several thousands of small Halipli in various parts 

 of the British Islands *. Through the kindness of several 

 friends I have also seen a large number of other British 

 s} ecimens, and I have seen some continental ones also 



* I should perhaps explain my method of collecting and how I 

 satisfied myself as to the specific identity of the females. I collected a 

 number of specimens of small Halipli horn some particular spot, and a 

 collection from any one place was kept separate from a collection from 

 any other place, the specimens usually being placed at once in tubes of 

 alcohol, each tube being registered under a number. Thus, in the course 

 of a few hours' collecting, I migjit have eight to ten collections, some 

 containing two or three specimens, others containing fifty or a hundred — 

 the contents of each tube being a sample from some one pond, lake, 

 ditch, or other type of habitat. The contents of each tube were later 

 overhauled, males being separated from females and identified by the 

 fedeagus, and then attempts were made to allocate the difterent females. 

 If, as sometimes, I g^ot a large collection containing only one species of 

 male, the probability was that at least the majority of the females be- 

 longed to that same species and it was thus possible to associate females 

 with one type of elytral sculpture, form of thoracic strife, or other 

 secondary character, with a certain type of male. This was again 

 checked by comparing other collections and finding that, as a rule, a 

 particular type of female was associated with one type of male. 



But, although I speak of " females of a particular form," as if seven 

 types of female could be separated at a glance and only required to be 

 allocated to the seven types of male, the matter is not really an easy one 

 for the very reason that the characters used are variable, and thus 

 females have been much more difficult to distinguish than the papers of 

 the three autliors mentioned would indicate. 



