On till' British Species of llaViplus. 97 



IV. — On the British Species of Hal i pi us, Latreille, related 

 to llali|)lus ruficollis, De Geer, with some Remarks upon 

 II. lulvicollis, Erichson, and II. furcaJus, Seidlitz. By 

 Fkank P)ALFOUR-Bkowni:, M.A. (Oxon. et Canlab.), 

 F.U.S.E., F.Z.S., Lecturer in Etitomolof^y in the De])art- 

 ment of Zoology, University of Cambridge. 



[Plates VII. & VIII.] 



The fjroup of species which I have referred to as being 

 related to Ilaliplus riificoUisj De G., includes seven British 

 forms, of which only three were known in our islands until a 

 few years ago. The group is a very difficult one, as is evi- 

 denced by the fact that three attempts have been made upon 

 it, without, however, altogether satisfactory results. 



The first attempt was made by Gerhardt (8 and 9) *, who 

 separated six nnd-European species, relying chiefly upon the 

 sculpture and upon the lineation and markings of the elytra. 

 He also divided the species into two groups, according as 

 the piosternum was grooved or flat. Three years later, 

 Wehucke (22) drew up another analytical tabic in which he 

 included eleven species, but he relied upon the same characters 

 as Gerhardt had done. 



Four years ago Edwards (5) distinguished the Britannic 

 species of the group, using, in addition to the previous 

 authors' characters, the form of the ^deagus and its accessory 

 lobes. Until his paper appeared tive sj)ecies had been 

 jiassing with British coleoi)terists under //. rujicoUis and 

 Jl.jluvialilis, and of these Edwards separated all except one. 

 Had he taken more advantage of his discovery of the adeagal 

 character — which is the only absolutely reliable specific 

 one, — he might have been saved from a number of errors 

 into which he fell. However, he did not use it for distin- 

 guishing all his species, but relied rather upon other characters 

 which are somewhat variable. Several statements made by 

 him are contrary to the observations of the earlier authors, 

 and in attempting to work out ni}' material with the aid of 

 his |)aper 1 found it unsatisfactory. 



His descri[)tion of the elytral puncturation of the female of 

 U. ruficollis differs, as to the extent of that puncturation, 

 from Gorllardt^•^, who first observed it, and from that of all 

 the succeeding authors (most of whom probably copied 

 Gerhardt), and Edwards explains this by assuming that they 



* See Bibliography, p. 122. 

 Ann. tD Mag. X. llist, Ser. 8. Vol. xv. 7 



