56 [[March, 



api^earancc ; smaller and more widely separated punctui"ation, the spaces 

 between the punctui'es being more shining ; reddish-yellow legs, antennae 

 and palpi, the first joint of the antennae and the femom and tibiae being 

 of a deeper i-ed ; the thorax at the posterior angles evidently more sepa- 

 rated from the base of elytra ; the scutellum longer and narrower and 

 distinctly punctm*ed all over ; the interstices between the three striae at 

 the sides of the elytra being rounded (not flat as in hovistae), and the 

 striae more mieven. 



I have bred three specimens of O. siihglohosa ( d $ $ ) from a Lyco- 

 perdon gemmatum which I found at Barton Mills, on September 9th, 1917, 

 and took home, as it contained a number of very small and medium-sized 

 white coleopterous larvae. The puff-ball was kept in a tin with a little 

 damp earth, and some muslin over the tin in place of the lid. From it 

 I had already bred one Lycoperdina succincta and a few Pocadius 

 ^errugineus. The larva of the Caenocara came out of the puff-ball, 

 and made a small cell in the earth beneath. At first I thought it was 

 a ver}' small Lycoperdina larva, and that, having deserted its food, 

 because it was dr}^ and there was not enough left, it would probably die. 



In the Ent. Mo. Mag. viii, p. 180 (1872), Sidebotham gives an 

 interesting account of how he bred specimens of C. hovistae from larvae 

 found "in small diy specimens of Bovista plumhea and other small fungi, 

 on a sandy flat near Barmouth." 



C. hovistae is sometimes taken by sweeping ; I have taken it in 

 .this way at Battle. 



C. suhglohosa is found in lycoperdons in France and Germany; 

 Europe, Central and South, and also Siberia, but appears to be rare. 



I owe my best thanks to Miss Lorrain Smith of the Natm'al History 

 Museum for kindly helping me to name the Lycoperdon. 



Putney. 



January 1918. 



ON THE BRITISH SPECIES OF NOTONECTA. 

 BY JAMES EDWAEDS, F.E.S. 



The more one studies the various kinds of Notonecta found in 

 Britain " as living things " the more difficult does it become to adopt 

 the supposition of Fieber (" Rhynchotographien," pp. 49, 50, 1851) that 

 N.furcata Fab. and N. maculata Fab. are varieties of N. glauca L., 

 or as he calls it N. fahricii. If it were worth while to controvert this 

 Fieberian dogma, one might inquire how it is that one does not find 

 amongst our native Notonectae a number of obvious mongrels such as 

 exists in the ease of Philaenus spumarius. It does not appear that 



