Mr. F. Day on the Bib and Poor- Cod. 387 



the preceding plate is simply emarginate in the middle, and 

 in front of this has a rather small space covered with minute 

 asperities. The second male is considerably smaller than the 

 first and has the hind body coarsely punctate ; the prominences 

 of the last dorsal plate are rather longer, the central lobe 

 being comparatively narrower, less rounded, and more emar- 

 ginate ; the ventral structure is nearly the same as in the other 

 individual, except that the lateral portions of the last plate 

 are rather more prolonged and less obtuse. In neither of tliese 

 males are the front tarsi dilated. My impression is that these 

 seven specimens represent three or four distinct species, in 

 which the specific sexual characters are much more feebly 

 differentiated than in the normal Tachini] but without further 

 material or evidence as to the cohabitation of the sexes I can- 

 not venture to attempt to characterize more than one species. 

 In any case, however, T. j^unctiventris is at once distin- 

 guished by the polished surface of head, thorax, and elytra, 

 and the punctuation of the hind body, the largely developed 

 antennse, and the very short metasternum. It will probably 

 be found that it should be generically separated from the 

 normal Tachini. 



Erchomus scitulus. 

 Erchomus scitulns, Weise, Deutsche eut. Zeitsclir. xxi. 1877, p. 91. 

 Mitzudake, near Nagasaki ; Hitoyoshi, in Higo. 



[To be continued.] 



LI. — On the Bib and Poov-Cod. 

 By Feancis Day, CLE., F.L S., &c. 



Professor M'Intosh, in your last issue, admits that he was 

 in error iti having stated in the Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, for 

 May 1886 that the bib and poor-cod were the same species ; 

 but as he also, possibly in error, misquotes some of my 

 statements, or observes upon omissions made by me, but 

 which do not exist, I beg for a short space in order to reply. 



He says that " the main point contended for in my note was 

 the confusion on the subject and the apparent uncertainty of 

 the author of the 'British Fishes'" (p. 3-19) — an uncer- 

 tainty which I think no one would have discovered but Dr. 



