THE MYRMEOOPHILOUS LADYBIRD. 215 



Coccinella lahilU, var. B., Mulsanfc Sec. 85 (1846)* '^ Coccinella dutlncta, 

 var. dnniidiica, VVeise, Zeits. Kntoni. 7 108 (1879)** ; Ganglbauer, Kcifer 

 Mitt. 3 1007 (1899)*-'^. Coccinella (Uatinrta ab. doiniduca, Eur. Cat. 

 Col., 363 (1906)*« ; Donisthorpe, Knt. Hec. 28 35 (1916)*7, 



Coccinella distincta, Fald., subsp. labilis, Muls., ab. intertexta, Weise. 



Coccijiella distincta va,v. intertexta, Weise, Beat. Tahln. 109 (1879)*^ ; 

 Ganglbauer, Kcifer Mitt. 3 1007 (1899)* 9. Coccinella distincta oh. inter - 

 texta, Enr. Cat. Col. 363 (1906) '"^o. 



Coccinella distincta was described by Faldermanni in 1837, from 

 Trans-Caucasica. His insect, which he figures, has only five spots on 

 the elytra, and although this has to stand as the type form, it is in 

 reality only an aberration in which spots 1 are missing. This so- 

 called type-form is evidently very rare ; there are no examples of it in 

 the general collection at the British Museum, audit has never occurred 

 in Britain. I have only seen a single specimen, which was taken by 

 the late Mr. W. J. AshdoAvn, in Switzerland, some years ago in 

 company with a number of examples all possessing 7 spots. 



Redtenbacher^, in 18il, again described the species, under the name 

 of uiagnifica, from Austria. This insect also only possessed 5 spots. 

 The European Catahxjue^^ treats this as an aberration of distincta, Fald., 

 but I do not see any reason for this. His type, from the description, 

 was a little larger, and the spots on the elytra were large — "maculis 

 quinque magnis nigris." The beetle usually has large spots, and 

 varies somewhat in size, and I consider that viaipii/ica, Redt., is a 

 synonym of distincta, Fald. 



Mulsant*, in 1816, gave a very good description of this lady-bird, 

 which he named labilis. He said that it was the C. vicuinifica oi Red- 

 tenbacher, according to the examples sent to him by that naturalist, 

 and that the latter, no doubt, made a typographical error in saying 

 only 5 spots, since there are 7. I think it is much more probable that 

 Recltenbacher described his type in the first instance from a specimen 

 which had lost spots 1. 



Later Mulsanf^ (in 1851) stated that the C. distincta, Fald., was 

 evidently the same as C. labilis, judging from an individual sent to hinor 

 by M. de Motschoulsky. In that example, which he had before him, 

 spots 1 were very small, showing by their small size a disposition to 

 become effaced, and that Faldermann had described C. distincta from 

 individuals in which these spots had disappeared. 



This was no doubt the case. I took a specimen at Weybridge, on 

 September 18th, 1918, in which sjpots 1 on the elytra are very small, 

 evidently being ^ such a specimen as that sent to Mulsant by 

 Motschoulsky. 



The European Catalogue^"^ treats labilis, Muls., as a synonym of 

 magniftca, Redt.; but as we have seen, this is not correct. The only 

 form found in Britain is the G. labilis, Mulsant, and I consider this 

 form should be called C. distincta, Fald., subsp. labilis, Muls. 



An aberration occurs which possesses 9 spots on the elytra, a small 

 extra spot being present on each shoulder. This is the var. domidaca, 

 Weise**, C. septem punctata var. n; Stephens*^, and C. labilis var. B., 

 Muls.* 3. It occurs in Britain, I having taken it at Woking, Weybridge, 

 Bexhill, and in the Blean Woods. This should be called C. distincta, 

 Fald., subsp. labilis, Muls., ab. doiniduca, Weise. 



