148 • [December, 



NOTES ON BEITISH HUMIPTERA—TRE BRITISH SPECIES OF 

 SCOLOPOSTETHUS, &c. 



BY EDWABD SAUNDERS, P.L.S. 



I have lately (through Mr. J. Eardly-Mason, of Alford, and Mr. 

 C. 0. "Waterhouse) had my attention especially called to this genus, 

 and I have accordingly captured a great number of specimens of its 

 various forms, and I propose here to offer a few remarks upon them. 



I must own that until this year I have always believed our so- 

 called species to be only varieties of each other, and this belief has 

 not yet entirely passed away, and in accordance with this view I fear 

 that my investigation of the distinguishing characters claimed for 

 them by more careful observers was very superficial ; this has had for 

 its result that I failed to notice an apparently good structural character, 

 mentioned by all our continental Hemipterists, and by Mr. Douglas 

 in Ent. Mo. Mag., xi, 265 ; but on having my attention called to it by 

 Mr. Waterhouse, I at once set to work to collect materials, to see if, 

 by its help, I could get to a better understanding of our so-called 

 species. 



The character I allude to is the presence in some individuals of 

 tubercles in front of the intermediate coxse. These are very prominent 

 in certain of the males, being long and curved, and are clearly present, 

 although often reduced to mere points, in certain of the females. 



It seems to me that the presence of these tubercles gives a fairly 

 good reason for separating their owners from those which do not 

 possess them. 



On this point Mr. Douglas makes some remarks in Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 xi, 265. He there considers that the presence or absence of these 

 tubercles is correlated with the development or non-development of the 

 wings. Here I fail to agree with him, as I have macropterous and 

 brachypterous specimens with tubercles, and macropterous and bra- 

 chypterous specimens without tubercles, and I therefore think that 

 whether we allow these tubercles as a character of specific value 

 or not, we must acknowledge that they are not dependent on alar 

 development. 



Up to the present it has been considered that we "have four species, 

 pictus, Schill., adjunctus, D. & S., affinis, Schill., and decoratus, Hahn. 

 Of these we may dismiss pictus, as it is easily recognised (whether 

 specifically distinct or not) by its larger size, brighter colouring, and 

 long, thin, entirely pale antenna? ; being very rare, it is not easy to 

 get together any number of specimens whereby to test its variability, 

 but all I have seen show very little tendency to vary. 



Between the other three I fail to detect any distinguishing struc- 



