2'2C) Mr. L. A. Borradailc on 



sometimes the disc also towarJs the apex, obscurely testa- 

 ceous or rufesceiit ; the anteiin;^ black, except at the base 

 and tip, much shorter in ? than in ^, joints 2 and 3 

 small in both sexes ; the head long ; tiie eyes smallt-r ; 

 the posterior femora much less thickeued. The sexual 

 characters were not noticed by Pic. 



Xt/lophilus laticorriis. 

 Ilylophilus ladconm, Pic, Ann. Soc. Eiit. Fr. 1912, pp. 278, 280. 



Hab. Ceylon, Kandy [type] ; Tenasserim, Mergui 

 (Dohertt/). 



The three specimens of X. lat'icornis in Mr. Bryant's 

 collection are almost certainly females, and there is an 

 example from Mergui in the British Museum exactly 

 agreeing with tiieui. In this insect the head is much pro- 

 longed behind the eyes, the eyes are small, and the elytra are 

 short, broad, convex, and somewhat coarsely, densely punc- 

 tate, and rather variable in colour, according to the predomi- 

 nance of the testaceous or blackish markings. 



XXVIII. — On the Species of Lucifer atid their Distribution. 

 By L. A. BoRRADAiLE, M.A., Lecturer in Zoology in the 

 University of Cambridge ; Fellow, Dean, and Lecturer of 

 Selwyn College. 



Our knowledge of the species of Lucifer is at present in a 

 confusion which is regrettable, not only from the point of 

 view of the systematist but also because it prevents the 

 drawing of conclusions as to the distribution of a character- 

 istic constituent of the pelagic fauna. The difficulties of 

 the subject are due to the very insufficient descriptions given 

 by Milne-Edwardsj M'ho named the first two species, the 

 genus having been founded by Vaughan Thompson for an 

 unnamed form. Milne-£dwards's obscurity has led sub- 

 sequent writers to confound under each of his names quite 

 distinct species. It seems probable, indeed, from an exami- 

 nation of the descriptions and drawings given by various 

 authors, that the species of Lucifer are far more numerous 

 than has hitherto been suspected. The only alternative to 

 this conclusion is to attribute to authorities who are usually 

 quite trustworthy an extraordinarily high proportion of 

 error in their diagnoses and figures. This I am the less 

 inclined to do as 1 have been able in some cases to confirm 

 the accuracy of the published descriptions by the examination 



