154 Notes on the Species of Stenus 



Sp. 35 (4). fulvicorms, Kirby, MSS. 



Steph. Illustr. and Coll. ; and St. pallipes 



(Grav.), Steph. Coll. 

 Leach, Coll. 

 paganus, Erichs. 



The insect in Kiiby's cal)iriet, which, according to the nnmber it 

 bears, should be his Si. fulcicorn'is, is St. tursalis of Ericlison, and 

 does not agree witii Kirby's description, which is no doubt from the 

 St. paganus of Erichson. In the MSS., Leach's collection is said 

 to possess the species, and there we find the St. paganus named 

 as fiilcicornis ; the same insect is similarly named in Stephens' 

 Collection. 



Sp. 36 (5). curvipes, Kirby, MSS. 



Described from an insect in VVilkins' Collection. The specimen 

 is in bad condition, having lost one of its elytra, as well as the 

 abdomen : its posterior tibiae are bowed inwards and forwards in 

 a marked degree, but it appeared to us that they were not both 

 quite alike, and this leads us to doubt their presenting a natural 

 condition of the parts in question. On the whole, after a careful 

 examination, we came to the conclusion that it was a crippled spe- 

 cimen of Stenus fuscipes, Er. This guess we subsequently found 

 to accord well in one important particular with the description by 

 Kirby, for we find the phrase ''abdomen teres submarginatum" in 

 the MSS. 



Sp, 37 (C). similis, Kirby, MSS. ? 



Steph. Illustr. and Coll. 

 paganus, Erichs. 



This species is merely named by Kirby in his MSS. : the de- 

 scription in the Illustrations is original. The insect which in Mr. 

 Stephens' cabinet stands as St. similis (and which is no doubt the 

 insect described), is the paganus of Erichson, whilst the St. similis 

 in Kirby's Collection is the very nearly allied species, differing in 

 having the antennae pitchy in the middle (instead of pale testa- 

 ceous), the elytra narrower, and the sculpturing rather less 

 coarse, in fact the species which we regard as the St. latifrons of 

 Erichson.* 



• There is some confusion in the differential characters as pointed out by 

 Erichson, which however is readily corrected by perusal of the descriptions. 



