NEW BRITISH SPECIES, ETC., IN 1869. 117 



only mention I find of it is that of Aube (Mon. Psel., 23), 

 who reproduces Leach's very short description, ^^ Corpore 

 toto nigrescente; antennis, palpis pedibusque pallidioribus," 

 and, of course, declines to give any opinion upon it. 



Leach brings the insect forward under a manuscript name 

 of Tozzelti's, and merely states that it occurs near Florence, 

 in Italy. 



In the same article he describes Areopagus mgicolUs and 

 Kunzea nigricepSy also from Italy, along with British species, 

 This probably accounts for Gemminger's mistake. Curiously 

 enough, there appears to be a Bryaxis nigricans (Gredler, 

 Kaf. Tirol., 1863, 130) from the Tyrol. 



180. Bythinusglabricollis, Denny; Wat. Cat.; Schaum, 

 I.e. 



It was by the late Dr. Schaum stated, in 1847, that this 

 species (inserted with a query in Mr. Waterhouse's — but 

 remaining unmodified in Mr. Crotch's— Catalogue) should 

 be deducted from our list, as Denny's insect is only the 

 female of B. hulhifer, and distinct from the glabricollis of 

 Reichenbach, which is itself, however, nothing but the fe- 

 male of clavicornis. 



According to Fairm. et Lab. and the synonymy of Wat. 

 Cat., B. glabricollis of Gyll. and Aube also is only B. 

 bulbifer ; and the name seems effectually sunk in all conti- 

 nental catalogues. 



According to Wat. Cat., the insect representing glabricollis 

 therein is a male, in Leach's collection ; but, be that as it 

 may, glabricollis, as a species, is of course non-existent, 

 Reichenbach's insect (described in 1816) being deposed for 

 the reason above stated. I have examined the two specimens 

 from the Leachian collection in the British Museum pur- 

 porting to be glahricuUis, and can find no difference what- 

 ever between them and bulbifer, except a slight increase in 



