GENUS EIS^TOMOBEYA, EOND. 273 



J871. D. nivalis, Tull (Efver Sv. Pod, p. 148. 



1873. D. annulata, (Fabr. of) Lubk. Ray Soc. Monogr. p. 109. 



Grround-colour usually greenisli yellow, with the markings 

 very distinct. Antennae a little more than half the length of the 

 body ; terminal three segments subequal. Second thoracic ring 

 large, with a faint basal baud ; third thoracic half the length of 

 the second, marked as in the preceding but a little darker. First 

 abdomiiml ring very narrow, almost without band ; second and 

 third abdomiuals increasing in width, with broad bands somewhat 

 triangular at the extremities ; fourth abdominal a little longer 

 than the four preceding segments taken together, with two tri- 

 angular bauds with their apices reaching the base of the seg- 

 ment, their bases never uniting, the whole segment tapering 

 considerably towards the base ; fifth and sixth abdomiuals with 

 marginal bands. 



This species is not very variable ; the markings on the fourth 

 abdominal segment, by which this species can be recognized at a 

 glance, are usually well defined and clear in outline ; if any bands 

 are absent, those on the thorax disappear first. I have not seen 

 any specimen, however, without markings altogether on the first 

 and second abdominal segments. Length -J^^ inch. 



Found throughout the year under logs of wood, &c. I have 

 also found it on ling, grass, elder, furze, willow, birch, alder, pine, 

 and lichen. In some sjjecimeus of this species there are four 

 sheaths around the mucros, instead of two as is usually the case. 



I agree with Tullberg that Nicolet and Lubbock have not cor- 

 rectly identified the P. nivalis of L. Linnaeus always refers to 

 the figure of De Geer for this species, and there can be no doubt 

 as to its identity on a comparison of the figures. Nicolet's spe- 

 cies is nevertheless a good one ; and here in England is much the 

 commonest of the genus. Since the time of Nicolet his species 

 nivalis has been regarded as identical with that of Linnaeus, with, 

 as far as I am aware, no exception until the publication of Tull- 

 berg's ' Sveriges Podurider.' It is true that Herklots (Tijds. v. 

 Entom. 1858) assured himself that two distinct species were con- 

 founded under the one name. He suggested that the species 

 described by De Geer as " Podura campestris cinerea " (Act. Ups. 

 1840) and as " Podura arhorea grisea " (Mem. sur les Insectes 

 vii.) should be known as Degeeria pi. I think, however, that 

 when Linnaeus and De Geer agreed that the former's nivalis was 

 the same species as that of the latter, it is Nicolet's name which 



