274 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



importance in the above-quoted remarks. He does not say who 

 determined the specific identity of his Swedish specimens, and he does 

 not say how many he had. His remarks apply in all but one character 

 to a comparison of nnijuicidaris with affinis. The latter is distinctly 

 more parallel-sided, and, in the majority of my specimens, the occipital 

 spots are rather more transparent, that is, a little brighter, than in 

 my specimens of uni/Hiciilaris. I have no a (Jims with clear red 

 antennae or legs. In all cases the joints of the antennae, except 

 three or four at the base, are somewhat darkened at their distal end, 

 but the antennae of nnynicularis are, in almost all cases, more 

 infuscate. 



The legs of all my specimens of afjinu are dark, and, in most cases, 

 more pitchy than those of my specimens of nuf/uicularis. 



Mr. Sharp speaks of the "much shorter anterior tarsal claws" of 

 the males of affinis. I have taken off and measured, under the 

 microscope, the anterior tarsal claws of several males of affinis and j 

 mujuicularis, and I can detect no appreciable difference. Mr. Sharp's 

 impression arises, I believe, from the fact that the tooth on the 

 anterior tarsal claw is somewhat heavier built in umjnicnlaris than in 

 affinis, which makes the claw of the former look somewhat larger. He 

 speaks of the " dens validus et acutus, mentioned by Thompson " of 

 the anterior tarsal claws of males of affinu, but says nothing at all as 

 to any tooth on the claws of males of iinf/uicidaris. 



A comparison of the anterior claw on the anterior tarsus of male 

 affinia with that of male unf/uicidaris, shows at once the differences 

 referred to by Mr. James Edwards. In affinis, the tooth is nearly in 

 the form of an equilateral triangle, the apex of which is directed 

 neither forwards nor backwards ; in unguicnlaris the tooth has, as a 

 rule, a slightly longer base, and its apex is directed forward towards 

 the apex of the claw, and it has a heavier appearance. 



With regard to the stridulating files on the ventral side of the 3rd 

 abdominal segment of the males of these two species, Mr. Edwards 

 has already pointed out that Mr. Sharp has transposed the descriptions. 

 I have made drawings, by means of camera lucida, of a file of each of 

 the species, and the great difference between the two is at once obvious. 

 The files of affinis occupy about f of the space of those of tvnijuindaris, 

 although composed of about the same number of teeth — the number 

 being somewhat variable in both species — and the ridges are very much 

 stronger in ungmcularis than in a (finis. 



As to the colour of the reflexed margin of the base of the elytra, it 

 is distinctly black in all my specimens of afpnh, and dusky-red in all 

 my specimens of unguicularis. I can quite believe that, in immature 

 specimens of affinis, this colour test might fail, but the elytra of 

 mature specimens of this species are, when examined by transmitted 

 light, much denser than those of unguicularis, and I should certainly 

 consider this character reliable between mature individuals. 



It is not easy to detect the difference between the metasterna in the 

 two species in dtii, but, if these are separated out by maceration, 

 mounted flat, and compared under the microscope, the difference is at 

 once obvious (see figure). If the elytra also of the two species are 

 removed and placed side by side, with underside uppermost, a slight 

 difi^erence in shape at the apex is easily seen, those of afftnis being rather 

 more sharply pointed than those of unguicularis. 



