1889.] 261 



lost time and kept the moss bag going with vigour. The weather was mild and the 

 moss abounded with beetles. My principal captures were : — Notiophilus palustris, 

 Anchomenus gracilis, A. piceus, Olisthopus rotundatus (its first appearance here. I 

 have taken it on Carlingford mountain several times), Bembidiun Clarlci (both light 

 and dark forms), B. Mannerheimi, B. obtusum, Pterostichus strenuus, P. diligens, 

 Co'iosoma lividum, Tachyporus brunneus, T. nitidicollis, Mycetoporus splendidus, 

 Jilegacronus cingulatus, Philonthus varians, P. nigrita, Cryptobium glaberrimum, 

 Lathrobium longulum, Othius melanocephalus, Sunius diversus, Stenus cerosus, Er. 

 (I think) , S. Jlavipes, S. bimaculatus, Oxytelus laqueatus, Agathidium Icevigatum, 

 Hypera rumicis, H. trilineatus and H. nigrirostris. There is a point about this last 

 which I should like to mention, as it may gain me information. I several times took 

 in moss what I supposed to be a dark brown Hypera, but always found bright green 

 H. nigrirostris when I went to look at them after death. I thought it was probably 

 from my not looking carefully when taking the specimens, or from the cyanide with 

 which I killed them, so the other day in broad daylight, not by lamplight, I selected 

 two of these brown weevils and put them in a bottle and placed the bottle in a dark 

 press. I have just looked at them and they are bright green. Is, therefore, the 

 dark brown the immature form of H. nigrirostris ? 



It will be seen from the above account that moss here is very productive, in fact, 

 I find it one of the best means of getting specimens. It is extremely plentiful and 

 luxuriant, and 1 never have any difficulty in getting as much as I care to carry. I 

 notice that the fern-like moss (I do not know its scientific name) has generally more 

 beetles in it than other kinds. — Id. : February 2nd, 1889. 



Lcemophlceus pusillus, Schon. ? — A few months ago, amongst some old pollard 

 and bran, I found a species of Lcernophlceus which I was unable to determine 

 satisfactorily from Cox's Handbook of British Coleoptera. I forwarded some speci- 

 mens to my friend Mr. Newbery, who concurred with my opinion with regard to 

 their distinctions from the species in the above-named work, and, at the sane time, 

 suggested that they might be pusillus, Schon., a species introduced in Dr. Sharp's 

 Catalogue of British Coleoptera, 2nd Edition, but, apparently, not described ; except 

 a note by the Eev. W. W. Fowler (Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. xxiv, p. 52) stating that the 

 insect had been taken by Mr. Fitch amongst imported corn at Maldon, Essex, and 

 that it was rather larger than L. duplicatus, to which it was somewhat closely allied, 

 and distinguished by having only one impressed line on each side of the thorax, and 

 by the fact that the antennae of the male were almost as long as the whole body, the 

 elytra also being more plainly striated and the general form broader. I have 

 carefully examined my specimens and compared them with authenticated types of 

 duplicatus, Waltl, and ferrugineus, Steph., and from the former they may be at 

 once separated by the characters given by Mr. Fowler ; the elytra also appear to be 

 more parallel-sided. In the case of ferrugineus it is more difficult, as the females are 

 very much like that species, but the thorax is less narrowed behind. The male, of 

 oourse, is easily distinguished from all the other British species by the length 

 of the antennae. I forwarded some of the beetles to the Rev. W. W. Fowler, 

 stating my idea about them, and he replied " I am nearly certain the Lcemo- 

 phlceus is pusillus, but, unfortunately, I seem to have mislaid my specimen." 

 Lcemophlceus testaceus, Fab.,No.ll47 in Stephens' "Manual," seems evidently to refer 



