Eiuglenes pygjiiceus. 5f) 



cahjcinus of Panzer is decidedly incorrect, that species being (according 

 to Schonherr, and confirmed by Panzer's figure) merely a variety of ^n- 

 thiciis Jloralis, which is a true Anthicus, and congenerous with Anth. an- 

 therinus, which I take to be the type of that group. The Adcrus Boleti 

 may perhaps be the J^otoxus mdanocephahis of Panzer,* notwithstanding 

 Gyllenhal gives that insect as the female of Anthicus fEuglenes mihi) 

 pygmceus as after mentioned, considering also the Anthicus ferrugincus 

 of PaykuU to be synonymous with the JVot. melanocephalus. It is certainly 

 not the Anthicus fXylophilus) populneus (vdth which it agrees in colour), 

 that species differing essentially from the Adertis Boleti in its generic 

 characters, especially in those of the antennte and hind legs. 



Marsham says of his Lytta Boleti, " Habitat in Boleto velutino. Larva 

 " et Imago simul semper adsunt." 



I beat two specimens of this interesting insect in the month of 

 September, 1826, from the oak near Ensham, in Oxfordshire; they 

 ran about quickly, although not with the vivacity of the Anthici, having, 

 indeed, somewhat the appearance of an Anobium. Mr. Stephens has 

 since met with several specimens at Ripley, all agreeing in colour and 

 general appearance, although I noticed that the legs and antennae of one 

 of the smallest specimens were longer than in the others ; the basal joints 

 of the latter organs were however similarly shaped, and I think it there- 

 fore not improbable that this might be the male, and the others females. 



Genus. Euglenes,! mihi, G. N. 

 Char. Gen". Corpus elongatum subdepressum. 



Caput magnum, transversum, deflexum, thorace latius, oculis 



masculis maximis in fronte fere conniventibus, profunde 



punctatis ; femineis mediocribus lateralibus. 



Antenna subtus oculos insertse ; masculae fere longitudine 



corporis, filiformes, subtus sen intus subserratae, articulo 



* This is very doubtful, since, I think, that if it were tlie case, Gyllenhal 

 would not have omitted all notice of the peculiar formation of the basal joints 

 of the antennx in his description of that insect, and which he states to agree 

 with the female of oculatus. 



f From Ei', bene, and yXip'rj, pupilla, oculus; from the singularly large eyes 

 in the males. 



