1918.1 81 



close together, but sometimes almost as far apart as the width of the 

 intervals. In certain specimens the interstices on the posterior half are 

 distinctly convex, but usually they are quite flat. 



It is probable that aeneus Steph. {nee Oliv.) was an immature speci- 

 men of this species. The description is inadequate to make this identity 

 certain, but the w^ords " elytra not foveated " apply better to this species 

 than to mutilatus, which it might otherwise be. Furthermore, its 

 constant identification with aeratiis, or rather with this species erro- 

 neously taken for aeratus, tends to confirm this view. Mr. Champion 

 also has two immature specimens of ater from Germany, labelled aeratus 

 Muls., though he does not remember from whom he received them. 



S. castaneus Panz. — There is no difficulty about this species. It 

 is the ^S*. immaculatus of Stephens, the type species of his genus 

 Sphaeriestes ; but this name was omitted from Mulsant's sj^nonymy 

 and also from Eeitter's European Catalogue (1906), though it appears 

 correctl}', as a synonym of castaneus^ in Gemminger and Harold's 

 Catalogue (L870). 



The elytral epipleuron in castaneus is particularly^ well marked, and 

 distinct almost to the apex. It is a little inflexed beneath, so as to be 

 invisible, when the insect is viewed from above, throughout its length. 

 In size and puncturation castaneus is almost as variable as ater ; usually 

 the striate punctures of the elytra form rather ii'regular wavy lines, and 

 become very confused tow^ards the base and at the sides ; but sometimes 

 these lines are much firmer and remain fairlj^ distinct throughout. This 

 form would appear to be *S'. exsanguis Abeille, according to a specimen 

 in Mr. Champion's collection named by Abeille himself. 



[N.B. — In suggesting reyi and exsanguis as possible British species 

 (Ent. Mo. Mag. xxiii, 1886, p. 160), Mr. Champion has inadvei-tently 

 allied the former to castaneus and the latter to ater, an error which was 

 copied by Fowler : these names should be transposed.] 



S. mutilatus Beck. — This is another species about which much con- 

 fusion has arisen. I have not been able to consult the original description 

 (Beitr. zur baier. Insekten, 1817, p. 19), but have little doubt that the 

 species was correctly identified by Sahlberg, who redescribed it in " Medd. 

 Soc. Fauna Fenn.," xxix, 1904, p. 40. This opinion is confinned by speci- 

 mens identified by Seidlitz, Reitt^r, etc., in Mr. Champion's collection. 



The name is not quoted by Mulsant, but his description oifoveo- 

 lotus Ljungh is more applicable to this insect, which he has apparently 

 confused with it. IMany authors attempt to identify mutilntiis with 



