G6 Mr. J. W. Shoebotham's Notes on Collembola. 



two, and we have tliem 6-jointecl. There is, however, no 

 true articulation between tlie subdivisions, and the antennae 

 are little, i£ at all, bent at these points. A similar process 

 of subdivision takes place in the genus Hetei'omurus, Waiikel 

 { = TempIetonia, Lubbock), except that only the first segment 

 is divided, resulting in 5-j<)intcd antenna?. This has been 

 illiistiated in the case of IJ. nitidus (Tempi.) by Borner 

 (1901), p. 78, fig. 33. 



I regard all species of Collembola as having primarily 

 4-jt3inted antenna^ and these may be secondarily divided as 

 above, or ant. iii. and iv. may be divided as in the genus 

 PUnothrix, or only ant. iv. as in Ari-hopalites and some other 

 genera of the Sniintliuridse. 



Orchesella Jlavescens (Bourl.), Agr.^ in England. 



z=JBeteyotoma flavescens, Bourlet (1839). 

 Orchesella rufescens, Lubbock, (1862) p. 592. 

 Orchesella ^avescens, Agren, (1903) pp. 149-151. 



This species has been recorded from England under the 

 uameof O.riifesceris; but Agren, in his paper on the Aptery- 

 gotal Fauna of South Sweden (1903) has shown that it should 

 be known as 0. Jlavescens of Bourlet, the earlier references to 

 Podura rvfaseens being insufficient for identification. It is 

 apparently not very common in England, for it hns only 

 been found and recorded on few occa>ions. The early 

 records, however, fur England seem to have been overlooked, 

 for Bagnall (1908), p. 82, includes OrchesiUa rufescens from 

 Delamere Forest, Cheshire, in a list of " Additions to the 

 Fauna of Great Britain," and (1909), ]). 501, writes of it 

 being "found nut inicommonly in Delamere Forest," and 

 " though this is a widely distributed Euroi)can species, and is a 

 common one in many counlries, it is only now that wo are 

 able to record it as a ]3ritish Insect." 



The previous references to this insect in England are as 

 follows : — 



Lubboik (1SG2), p. 592, says of 0. riifesrens'.—''T\\ii 

 body is rather narrow, and much less heavy than in {\\q otiter 

 En(//it,h i-pecies." The paper is written of Collembola found 

 by Lubbock since wiiting Parti, of his " Notes on the Tliysa- 

 nura," and for some of the s])ecies he mentions Kent as ii 

 locality ; so that I regard the above as a distinct record of the 

 8|)('cies from England. 



iSirJohn Lubbock, in his Monogra|)h (1873), himself seems 

 to have oveilooked the iact that he had |)reviously found and 

 recorded this species, for (p. 134) he says: — "The following 



