114 Mr. F. Balfour-Browne on the 



to find it in Fife, Forfar, Inverness E., Perth Mid, or any of 

 the western islands I have worked, and it did not occur in 

 the Isle of Man. Continental records range from Norway 

 and Siberia to the Mediterranean district ; but, in view of 

 the general confusion which has existed as to the ruficollis 

 group, they require confirmation. 

 General Summary of Characters. — 



f 1. General form rather long, but not parallel-sided. El^'tra widest 

 about the middle. 



Thorax not more than twice as broad as long, the sides almost 

 straight. 



Thoracic striae usually very short; little more than large oblong- 

 punctures. 



Elytra witli the black lines spreading in such a way that, from a 

 A.-^ short distance, dark bands alternating with light ones appear 



to run obliquely from the shoulders to the median suture, one 

 such dark band being at extreme base, another reacliing the 

 median suture about halfway back, and a third about halfway 

 between that and the apex. 



Presternum shining, with slight tendency to bulge in median 

 line ; large punctures scattered, and at most only a trace of 

 fine puncturation. 



1. Ant. tarsal claws subequal, the difference between the two being 

 distinct but not great. 



2. Basal segment of median tarsus not excised on posterior side. 

 1. Elytra usually covered with fine puncturation in Britannic speci- 



Q j mens, but rarelj^ smooth on the disc. Continental specimens 



+ ■ 1 appear to be usually impuuctate in the anterior part of the 



( elytra. 



As to sedeagal characters, note the similarities between tlie 

 Ecdeagus in this species and in H. apicalls — and the diffe- 

 rences ! Compare also the left accessory lobe in the two 

 species. 



3. //. nomax^ mihi, Ent. Month. Mag. ser. 2, xxii. p. 153 

 (1911). 



I discovered this species when examining my material 

 after the publication of Edwards's paper, and its existence 

 naturally contributed largely to my difficulties in identifying 

 the different species with that paper. Shortly after my 

 publication of a short note (i), Sliarp (20) separated off 

 another form, which he named browneanus, and which he 

 considered, and still considers, a distinct species. He has 

 endeavoured to convince me o£ the fact, but, after long con- 

 sidering the matter, and not without some misgivings, 

 because of his vastly greater experience, I have preferred to 

 regard it as a variety of my species. Whereas I regard 

 striatvs as a mere synonym of apicaJis^ I regard browneanus 



