150 (December, 
Mr. Moncreaff’s insect agrees with Scidlitz’s myrmecophilus in being as it 
were intermediate between J. aristatus and T. squamulatus, differing, however, 
structurally from both. It has the stout, clubbed, elytral sete of aristatus (though 
they are not quite so pronounced), but its thorax is not so wide, and its elytra are 
more elongate, not being so inclined to globose-oval. The second segment of its 
abdomen, moreover, is divided from the first by an arched suture, and is longer 
than the 3rd and 4th segments together ; whereas in aristatus the second segment 
is divided from the first by a straight line, and is scarcely so long as the 3rd and 
4th segments together,—the segmental divisions, also, being stronger. From 
squamulatus it recedes in its much stouter and more evident elytral setze, its 
larger eyes, laterally more rounded and bristly thorax, rather longer second 
abdominal segment, and less horizontal antennal furrow or “scrobs,’’ which is 
directed at first rather upwards and then down towards the eye, and has its upper 
margin not so sharply defined. 
The second British species of Cathormiocerus above mentioned (of which I 
have seen some five or six specimens, taken by Mr. Moncreaff at different parts 
of the north-east side of the island of Portsea, from moss, roots of plantain, grass, 
&c., and for a fine example of which I am much indebted to that gentleman) was 
originally brought before my notice by Mr. G. R. Crotch, who submitted it to me 
for comparison with my type of CO. socius from Sandown, and who has subsequently 
sent it to Dr. Seidlitz for determination. I have, therefore, thought that a few 
notes on the differences between the two insects may not be uninteresting ; 
especially as the Portsea species does not satisfactorily accord with any in Seidlitz’s 
monograph. Compared with my socius, it is flatter, shorter, broader and darker, 
with the punctures of the strie of the elytra larger and rounder, the thorax 
broader, with its sides more suddenly and strongly widened before the middle, and 
the rostrum more equally broad (the antennal furrows not being so approximated), 
with its longitudinal furrow not so conspicuous, being, indeed, scarcely perceptible ; 
the scape of the antenna is thicker and shorter, not so angularly dilated at the 
base on the side next the eye, but more so on the outer side; the joints of the 
funiculus are much shorter and stouter; the elytral setz are shorter, finer, and 
nearly black instead of yellowish; and the clothing of scales is not so bright or 
variegated. The antennal furrows form broad grooves, deep at the base, slightly 
curved downwards towards the eyes, where they are shallowest and smooth, and 
with their upper margin the most distinct and reaching to the upper fore margin 
of the eye. When viewed from above or from the front, these grooves are not so 
open as in my socius, in which insect the whole furrow is more directed upwards, 
with its lower margin the most distinct, being elevated and curved upwards until 
it merges with the upper margin considerably in front of the eye: this upper 
margin has a small abrupt and angular process (entirely wanting in the Portsea 
species) just before the point of junction of the two margins, and the whole furrow 
forms a pit-like enclosure for the accurate reception of the dilated base of the scape. 
The space between the back of this pit and the eye is not smooth and shining (as 
in the corresponding portion in Mr. Moncreaff’s insect), but, though slightly 
depressed for the reception of the shaft of the scape, has the longitudinal rough- 
nesses of the head continued over it, 
