lirkish Species o/IIaliplus. 121 



nml vet lia<l failed to ol)3orvc it in the females of fuh't'col/it, 

 aiitl ht'causc of this, and also because of Edwards's reniaiks 

 upon th(^ male armature, I wrote to ^lessrs. Schiilz, Everts, 

 Oan-lbauer, and Iteitter askini^ for ^ and ? specimens of 

 J{. fti/vicollis, Er. My ktiowiedge 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. llcrr »Schu!z sent 

 me eijjdit specimens which, on examination, proved to bo 

 J/, hci/'/eniy (1 cJ, 1 ? ), //. ruJicolUs (1 J , 2 ? ), //. immacu- 

 latns (1 cJ ), and //. cinereus (2 ? ) ! 



Through the kindness of Alessrs. Edwards and Champion 

 and \)v. 8harp, I was enabled to see the JJritish specimens 

 mentioned by Edwards and the Italian ? specimen which 

 Edwards correctly described as //. furcatus, tSeidl., and 

 Mr. Edwards also sent me the Schuiz specimens upon which 

 he had rtlied. The British specimens are II. rujicollis of the 

 continental type, and agree perfectly with the Schulz sjjcci- 

 meiis and with others from various sources. II. fulvicolUs 

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

 ])assed 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 stria? 

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

 ^ are practically equal in length, the thoracic striaj are 

 strai'dit, and the sides of the thorax are straiirht. 



The a^tleagus 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 long, 

 nearly straight groove and there i^ no saccular region. 

 The lett accessory lobe is triangular, with two separate 

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

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



Among the specimens sent me from the Continent were 

 several labelled " var. furcatus, Soidlitz,'' and supcificially on 

 the upper side these exactly resemble II. fulvicollis. They 

 differ, however, 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 JSeidlitz 

 named a species to a mere variety. However, the aidea^us 

 ot fit rcatus is very different from that of fulvicollis, as my 

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

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

 on these grounds II. farcatus should be restored to the rank 

 given it by ^eidlitz. 



