236 THE ENTOMOLOGJst. 



Chloi'ops hypostigma. — I might have had considerable trouble 

 in saying that this was not a specimen of the much debated 

 G. hjjpostigma, Mg., but for the fact that the specimen does not 

 belong to the Chloropidse ! 



I would also repeat that Pteropoecila lamed is not yet properly 

 recorded from Britain ; our species is the little known Toxoneura 

 muliebris, Har. (=fasciata, Mcq.). 



As to misprints, near the bottom of page 203, for Chrysophilus 

 read Chrysopilus, for cylindricator read cylindrica, and for haum- 

 hauerri read haumhaueri. 



Many of Mr. Billups' captures at Oxshott are quite good 

 enough to prove that the locality is a good one ; and, from a 

 specimen in front of me, I see that he caught an unrecorded 

 British species there on August 16th, 1890, in Sciomyza duhia, 

 Fin., a well-marked species of which I find I took a single 

 specimen at Lynton on June ]7th, 1883. 



Let me repeat, " A vast amount of work remains yet to be 

 done, but it had better be done with caution." 



(I am extremely obliged to Mr. Verrall for his goodness in 

 putting me straight in this matter of supposed new British 

 Diptera ; but, as I have previously stated, I am indebted to 

 Dr. Meade for determining five of the species referred to by 

 Mr. Verrall ; the remaining three were identified by Mr. Brunetti. 

 — T. E. B.) 



NOTES ON THE PHYTOPHAGOUS GENUS DIACANTHA, Chev. 



(COLEOPTERA, GALEEUCIN^.) 



By Martin Jacoby, F.E.S. 



To my remarks (Entom. Suppl. p. 39) on the genus Diacantha 

 {Idacantlia, Fairm.), saying that M. AUard has created some 

 confusion in regard to this genus and Aulacophora in not having 

 recognised the distinguishing characters of both genera, and 

 redescribing some old species by giving wrong descriptions of 

 them, M. Allard has replied that 1 am totally mistaken, and 

 giving his reasons for it. Further researches on the subject, in 

 which Mr. Gahan, of the Entomological Department of the 

 Natural History Museum, has kindly assisted me, seem to prove 

 that my former remarks are only partially justified, which I 

 am very pleased to own. The reason why I uttered them is as 

 follows : — 



Chevrolat first characterised the genus Diacantha, but in an 

 unsatisfactory way, including several species in the genus which 

 are not members of it as now understood. Chapuis, later on, 

 described at length the genus in his ' Genera des Coleopteres,' 

 giving the claws as bifid. Still later, von Harold, in the 



