APHIDIDJE FOUND IN KENT. 



351 



characters of such a kind that it is difficult to decide whether it 

 is a Malacoderm or an Elaterid. The head has in front a rather 

 sharp, slightly raised, projecting margin, beneath which what 

 appears to be a narrow transverse epistome can just beseen; 

 the prosternum sends back a short narrow process which is 

 received in a small cavity or depression of the mesosternum. 

 Both of these characters suggest an affinity with the Elateridse, 

 and there is nothing to conflict with this view either in the 

 structure of the legs, including their long, simple, five-jointed 

 tarsi, or in the shape and sculpture of the elytra, all of which 

 have much resemblance to those of Cero2)lastus* But the pro- 

 thorax, instead of having the posteriorly diverging sides and 

 conspicuous hind angles so characteristic of the Elateridse, has 

 the sides slightly rounded in the middle, narrowed as much 

 towards the base as to the apex, and with only a feeble trace of 

 a sharp lateral margin. Again, there is no such co-adaptation 

 between the base of the prothorax and the base of the elytra 

 and scutellum as is generally met with in the Elateridas. But 

 this, as I have already stated, is very imperfect in the Cebri- 

 onidae, and it is almost equally so in Ceroplastiis. On the 

 whole, it is most probable that Phenace, Base, is a Malacoderm, 

 though not rightly placed in the Melyridse. But if a Malaco- 

 derm, it seems to me to be one that with very little change 

 might be converted into an Elaterid of a not very primitive 

 type. By saying that I do not wish to suggest that it is a proto- 

 type of the Elateridae. It is only to support my view that the 

 relationship between the Elateridae and Malacodermata is very 

 much closer than has hitherto been suspected. 



A SECOND LIST OF THE APHIDID^ FOUND IN KENT. 



By Fred V. Theobald, M.A., F.E.S., &c. 



The following eighty-three species of Aphididse from Kent 

 have been definitely identified. Most of them have been taken 

 this year. Many are new to Britain. Some dozen or so more 

 I have been unable to fix with any degree of certainty, and at 



- Ceroplastiis, Heyden, 1891, for some time wrongly named Plasto- 

 cerus, is one of a group of genera, taken some from the Elateridse and some 

 from the Eucnemidit, to form a family, named by Keitter Phylloceridae, and 

 by Schwartz Plastoceridte. From this proposed family, as it was charac- 

 terised and constituted by Schwartz, there are certain genera which oughtto 

 be excluded, and, as one of these is the genus Plastocerus itself, the family 

 name can hardly stand. Eeitter gives as the chief distinguishing character 

 of the family that there is a membranous hind border to each of the first four 

 visible segments of the abdomen, whereas in true Elateridae and Eucnemidae 

 only one segment, the fourth, is so provided. But the possession of this one 

 feature in common does not seem to be a sufficient justification for bringing 

 together forms which otherwise are so different as Phyllocerus and Cero- 

 2)lastus, 



