548 



MERISTIC VARIATION. 



[part I. 



Jayne, I.e., p. 157, PI. vr.fig. 7. 

 Krause, Stet. ent. Zt., 1871, 



xxxn. p. 136. 

 Perty, Mitth. not. Ges. Bern, 



1866, p. 307, fig. 6. 



MOCQUERYS, I.C., p. iS,jig. 



Kraatz, Dent. ent. Zt., 1877, xxi. 



p. 56, PI. i. Jig. 11. 

 Otto, Herm., I. c., 1877, i. p. 52, 



PI. ii. 

 Kraatz, Dent. ent. Zt., 1880, xxiv. 



p. 344. 

 Mocquerys, I.e., p. 49, Jig. 

 Lent by M. H. Gadeau de Ker- 



ville 1 . 

 Ragusa, Nat. Sicil., i. p. '281, 



fig. 



Lent by Dr Mason. 

 Mocquerys, I.e. , p. 60, Jig. 

 Ann. and Mag. N. H.,'l829, n. 



p. 302, fig. 

 Bassi, Ann. Soc. ent. France, 1834, 



S. 1, m. p. 375. 

 von Heyden, Isis, 1836, ix. 



P. 761. 

 ibid. 



X CMaenius diffinis (Carab.) L 2. tb. 



Rhagium mordax (Longic.) R 2. tb. 



Agabus uliginosus (Dytisc.) R 3. tb. 



* J Acanthoderes nigricans (Longic.) L 2. tb. 



Colymbetes adspersus (Dytisc.) <? L3. tb. 



$ Procrustes coriaceus (Carab.) R3. tb. 



J Carabus melancholicus <? R3. tb. 



* £ Tenebrio granarius (Het.) L 3. tb. 



* j Calosoma auropunctatum (Carab.) Rl. tb. 



Silpba granulata (Clav.) R3. tb. 



* Philonthus succicola (Staph.) R 3. ts. 



* J Telephorus excavatus (Mai.) R 2. ts. 



Chlacnius vestitus (Carab.) L2. ts. 



Telephorus fuscus (Mai.) ? 2 ? 



Prionus coriaceus (Longic.) ? 



Prionus sp. (Longic.) ? ? f. 



2. Antennae. 



The remarks made in preface to the last section apply here 

 also, and with additional force from the consideration pointed out 

 (p. 513), that many antennae are without obvious differentiation 

 between their anterior and posterior surfaces. As Kraatz has 

 pointed out, it is especially in such forms as Lamellicorns or 

 Lucanidae that extra antennas are found double, and I think there 

 is an obvious inference that this greater frequency in them is due 

 to the fact that the two borders are so markedly differentiated 

 that the duplicity cannot easily be disguised. I have sometimes 

 fancied too that perhaps the existence of this great differentiation 

 between the two borders may actually contribute to the physical 

 separation of the two extra parts in the Positions A and P and 

 thus prevent that masking of the duplicity which is seen for 

 instance in Navosoma No. 801. 



However this may be, special importance must be attached to 

 the few cases in Lamellicorns, Lucanidas and the like, where there 

 seems to be a single extra part, making that is to say a duplicity 

 of the antenna. Cases of this kind that I have myself seen I 

 therefore treat more fully, and it may be stated that in none of 

 them is there anything that can be called clear duplicity. In 

 many on the contrary the extra part is nearly cylindrical, and 

 thus symmetrical in itself. Hence it may possibly be morpho- 

 logically double. Of the remainder I can give no confident 

 account. For as has been said, though many, e.g., Zonabris 

 ^-punctata (in No. 858), do look very like cases of true duplicity 



1 Originally described by Fleutiaux, Rev. d'Ent., 1883, p. 228. 



