82 [April, 



viresce}2s !Muls., but its characters do not agree with those of Mulsant's 

 subgenus Colposis. Abeille, who states that mvtilatus * was unknown 

 to him, protested against the assumption of this identity (Bull. Soc. Hist. 

 Nat. Toulouse, viii, 1874, p. 20), and later Pic has expressed disbelief in 

 it (L'Echange, xix, 1903, p. 140), but without offering any explanation ; 

 it is doubtless the same error that accounts for Dr. Sharp all3dng Colposis 

 with Rahocerus (Ent. Mo. Mag. 1909, p. 245), whereas the true virescens 

 is a very different insect. Gerhardt, too, evidently follows Mulsant in 

 his determination of this species 2i?,foveolatus,7i\-\d. consequently redescribes 

 the latter as a new sipecies, ffcthrieli. Lastly, Keitter, recognising Grerhardt's 

 foveolatus and gahrieli, and assuming the identity of mntilatus (a speci- 

 men of w^hich, correctly identified by him, is in Mr. Champion's collection) 

 Avith vwescens, which was apparently not known to him, tries to make 

 the same species do duty both for Colposis and Rahocerus, according to 

 the degree of development of its thoracic impressions. (In some speci- 

 mens there is a pair of well-marked foveae near the middle line towards 

 the base of the thorax, which in others is scarcely indicated. This is 

 probably mntilatus var. impressitliorax Pic.) 



8. mntilatus w^as apparently unknown to Stephens, unless it can 

 have been his aeneus, but the exjDression "elytra not fovea ted" seems to 

 l^reclude this possibility. It was first identified as a British insect hj 

 Mr. Champion in 1886. 



Rahocei'us hisJiopi Sharp (loc. cit.) I am quite unable to recognise 

 as specifically distinct from S. mutilatus, an opinion in which Seidlitz, 

 Champion, Newber}^ and others agree. Dr. Sharp himself states that 

 had he only had one specimen he would have considered it a variety of 

 mntilatus, and I fail to see why the mere fact of his having a series from 

 one localit}^ should make him grant it specific rank. B. hisJiopi was 

 beaten from birch, while mntilatus seems usually to be attached to beech. 



S. foveolatus Ljungh. — The original description of this insect is 

 verv detailed, though the figure is poor, but the only species known to 

 me to which they can apply is that hitherto known by this name in our 

 collections. Specimens still extant in Stephens's collection prove that he 

 had the same insect, and it is correctly identified by Fowler. It is appa- 

 I'ently a more northern species than most others of the genus, and not 

 occurring in France w^as probably unknown to Mulsant, who seems to 

 have mistaken our mntilatus for it. It is well known to Sahlberg, but 

 some authors have undoubtedly followed Mulsant, so that Gerhardt was 



* The foveolatus of Abeille was probably /mdilatut. — K. G. B. 



