1888 Insects. 



by everybody who has endeavoured to do this, that, at least in the more numerous and 

 obscure genera, mistakes cannot be entirely avoided, where we are not guided by au- 

 thenticated specimens of one or several species. So it frequently happened that 

 British entomologists mistook the species of continental authors, and in consequence 

 sometimes described the very species they had mistaken under a new name. On the 

 other hand, modern German and French entomologists have proposed many spe- 

 cies as new, which were previously published by British authors. The only fact which 

 they can allege in order to excuse themselves, is, that having generally a much greater 

 number of species before them, they could not positively decide to which of their 

 species the descriptions of English writers were applicable. 



It results, from the following list, that not a single species of the Hydrocantharidae is 

 exclusively British ; they all occur also either in France, Switzerland and Germany, or 

 in Norway and Sweden. The species common to Great Britain and Norway, and 

 not found in Germany and France, are only two, viz., Agabus arcticus and Hy- 

 droporus novem-lineatus. The result which I obtained from the examination of 

 another and much larger family of beetles, in British collections, is nearly the same. 

 Amongst the British Carabidee there are scarcely half-a-dozen species not yet dis- 

 covered on the Continent, the more remarkable of which are Leistus montanus, Blemus 

 pallidus, and Lymnaeum nigro-piceum. This fact, that the number of exclusively 

 British insects is exceedingly small, seems sometimes not to have been borne in mind 

 even by entomologists of the present day, who supposed that insects new to the British 

 fauna were also new to science. For instance, I am much inclined to believe that the 

 Aphodius ericetorum, lately described by Mr. Hardy, is only the A. lapponum of 

 Gyllenhall ; and Khyzophagus cserulescens, of the same author, the It. caeruleus of 

 Wal. and Erichson ; though I do not venture to give a positive opinion as to these 

 species, not having compared specimens of them with the foreign ones above named. 



I have not entered into any details of description in the following enumeration, all 

 the species being sufficiently characterized in the works to which I have referred. 



I cannot conclude these introductory remarks without acknowledging the great as- 

 sistance I have received from Mr. Stephens, who has most kindly and liberally allowed 

 me the free use of his extensive collection, by which means I have been able to decide 

 with certainty concerning species which, had I obtained only access to descriptions, I 

 could not satisfactorily have done. To Mr. Haliday, Mr. Wollaston and Mr. Hislop, I 

 also beg to return my thanks, as well as to Mr. White and Mr. E. Doubleday, of the 

 British Museum, from whom I have received every kindness and assistance. 



Genus Haliplus, Lair., Erichs., Aube. 



1. H. elevatus, Panz., Gyll., Steph., Aube, Erichs. 



2. H. mucronatus, Steph. 



— parallelus, Babington. 



— badius, Aube. 



3. H.fulvus, Fabr., Clairv., Babington, Erichs., Steph. Man. 



— ferrugineus, Gyll., Aube. 



— ferrugineus, var., Steph. 111. 



4. H.Jlavicollis, Sturm, Aube. 



— impressus, Erichs., Steph. 111. 



— ferrugineus, Steph., Babington, not Linn. 



The distinguishing characters of the last three species, which are nearly allied, are 



