A STUDY OF THE BRITISH LYCiENIDES. 129 



4.4. Pronotum smooth, with central keel 

 much less elevated. 

 5. Antennae thick, segments short ; spots 



of pronotum oblique . . . . . . 4. keausbi, Saulcy. 



5.5. Antennas slender, segments long (spot 



of pronotum in transverse triangle) 5. bipunctatus, L. 

 2.2. Pronotum flat or slightly tectiform. 

 3. First segment of posterior tarsi with the pads 

 rounded on lower margin, the 3rd pad not 

 longer than either of first two (edges of all 

 femora undulated) .. .. .. ..6. tueki, Krauss. 



3.3. Fu-st segment of posterior tarsi straight 

 on lower margin, 3rd pad as long as 1 

 and 2 together. 

 4. Anterior femora with borders straight, 

 unbroken. 

 5 . Apex of vertex broad , prominent between 

 the eyes ; hinder borders of pronotum 

 not raised up at edges . . . . . . 7. subulatus, L. 



5.5. Apex of vertex broad, but little promi- 

 nent between the eyes ; hinder part 

 of pronotum raised at the edges in 

 a little keel . . . . • . . . 8. bolivaei, Saulcy. 



4.4. Anterior femora with borders undulate 

 5. Large ; inhabits north Europe . . 9. fuligctosus, Zetti 



5.5. Small; inhabits south Europe .. 10. ceperoi, Bol. 



1. Tettix depressus, Brisout. 



Easily known by the very rugose pronotum, impressed on each 

 side at the shoulders, with the central keel roundly elevated in front 

 half, then subsinuate ; the posterior produced part varies in length 

 considerably ; when extremely long, i.e., reaching half way down the 

 posterior tibiae, it forms the variety acuminatiis, Bris., in which the 

 wings are also long, though normally short. All femora with undu- 

 late keels. Length of body, 8mm, ^ , 9mm. -10mm, ? ; of pronotum, 

 8mm, J , 9mm.-14iiim. 2 . 



Throughout the coasts of the Mediterranean. In France, it is very 

 common in Provence and Languedoc, nearly all the year round ; the 

 var. acuminatiis occurs with the type but less frequently. It is found 

 throughout Spain and Portugal. Brisout records it as far north as 

 Paris, and Rudow, doubtless in error, in Thuringia and Mecklenburg. 



A Study of the Generic names of the British Lycasnides and 

 their close allies. 



By J. W. TUTT, F.E.S. 



In 1896, when I wrote the little book British Butterflies (Gill & Sons, 

 Warwick Lane, E.G.), I had to consider the generic terms in use, and, 

 with only a superficial search into the various names usually accepted 

 and their application to the divisions required, I concluded it advisable 

 to use certain names for certain genera, stating [Ent. Rec, vii., pp. 

 219-220) my reasons for the choice of those selected in the Ruralides 

 (Lycenides) and later, giving (oj). cit., pp. 300-301) a tabulation of the 

 names proposed to be used throughout the work British Butterflies. 



But the writing of a more or less advanced standard text- book was 

 another matter, and a consideration of the generic (and specific) 

 synonymy became a serious business. Instead of making a study of the 

 whole of the genera ever proposed for British butterflies at one time, 



