British Species o/Haliplus. 121 



and yet had failed to observe it in tlie females of fuIvicoUis, 

 and because of tliis, and also because of Edwards's remarks 

 upon the male armature, 1 wrote to Messrs. Sciiulz, Everts, 

 Ganglbauer, and Reitter asking for cJ and ? specimens of 

 H. fulvicoUis, Er. My knowledge of the species rests upon 

 the specimens sent me by the three last-named, and these 

 specimens were all alike and agreed in all points with the 

 descriptions given by various authors. Herr Schulz sent 

 me eigiit specimens which, on examination, proved to be 

 H. heydeni'i (IcJ, 1 ? ), ^. ruficoUis {1<^,2^), H. immacu- 

 latus (1 cJ ), and //. cinereus (2 $ ) ! 



Tlirough the kindness of Messrs. Edwards and Champion 

 and Dr. Sharp, I was enabled to see the British specimens 

 mentioned by Edwards and the Italian ? specimen which 

 Edwards correctly described as H. furcatus, Seidl., and 

 Mr. Edwards also sent me the Schulz specimens upon which 

 he had relied. Tlie British specimens are H. rujicollis of the 

 continental type, and agree perfectly with the Sciiulz speci- 

 mens and with others from various sources. H. fulvicoUis 

 of Ericlison is a very distinct species, and is not likely to be 

 passed over if it does occur in our islands. The pattern of 

 the dark markings on the elytra, the form of the prothorax, 

 and the comparatively fine punctures forming the elytral striaj 

 are sufficient to arrest attention. The ant. tarsal claws of the 

 $ are practically equal in length, the thoracic strijB are 

 striiight, and the sides of the thorax are straight. 



The a^deagus with its accessory lobes is also quite distinct 

 from that of any other British species. There is no hood ; 

 the main lobe lias a large tongue, upon which is a lono-, 

 nearly straight groove and tiiere is no saccular region. 

 The left accessory lobe is triangular, with two separate 

 patches of stiff hairs upon its dorsal edge, one of which seems 

 to be an elaboration of the apical tuft of the British species. 



Among the specimens sent me from the Continent were 

 several labelled '' yar. furcaius, Seidlitz/' and superficially on 

 the upper side these exactly resemble If. fulvicoUis. They 

 differ, liowever, on the underside in the sculpture of the pro- 

 sternum, and, if that were the sole distinction, it would justify 

 the action of continental authors in reducing what Seidlitz 

 named a species to a mere variety. However, the a3deagus 

 o'i furcatus is very different from that of fulvicoUis, as my 

 figure shows, and the left accessory lobe is also distinct, 

 while even the right lobe (the scale) is slightly different, and 

 on these grounds //. furcatus should be restored to the rank 

 given it by Seidlitz. 



