174 Rev. F. D. Morice on the 6th $ ventral segment 



these " types ") " passt genau auf pallicomis, Friese " : a 

 statement, which considering the characters cited above, 

 I am quite unable to understand. 



If then Perez's difformis is, as maintained above, not 

 identical with pallicornis, what is it ? 



I believe it to be a species not uncommon on the Alps, 

 whose antennae (Figs. 28, etc.) correspond in every respect 

 to those of difformis as the author describes them, while in 

 other characters also it corresponds and especially in the 

 somewhat dull and closely punctured fifth ventral segment 

 — that of pallicomis being punctured much more sparsely 

 and very shining. 



Now this species, I feel certain, is Ducke's moraivitzii. 

 Perez's morawitzi it cannot possibly be, if only on account 

 of the 5th ventral segment (morawitzi " brillant, ponctu- 

 ation espacee !") But Ducke's moraivitzii I believe it is ! 

 The antenna he figures under that name resembles those 

 of my Swiss specimens, and fits much better with Perez's 

 description of difformis than with that by the same author 

 of morawitzi. Also in the footnote above cited Ducke says 

 that the difformis-tyipes sent to Friese by Perez " sich als 

 moraivitzii erwiesen." If difformis, Perez = moraivitzii, 

 Ducke nee Perez, that is natural ! And surely it is far 

 more likely that Perez and Ducke should differ in their 

 idea of morawitzi, than that the former author should have 

 mistaken for his own species (difformis) another (morawitzi 

 sec. Perez) which he has so carefully distinguished from it 

 in his well-known papers on the subject. 



I had not only written thus far, but (as I supposed) had 

 completed this paper, when a kind communication from 

 Professor Perez entirely confirmed the views above stated. 

 He has sent specimens both of difformis and of morawitzi 

 as described by himself. Difformis is not pallicornis, but 

 is the species of my Figs. 12, 28, etc. and also (I believe) the 

 morawitzii of Ducke. Morawitzi is a species to which none 

 of Ducke's descriptions correspond, which I have taken 

 freely in South France and Algeria, and to which belong 

 my Figs. 4, 24, etc. 



This latter species (morawitzi, Perez nee Ducke) we have 

 now to consider. Is it, or is it not, the morawitzi of 

 Gerstaecker = loti $ Morawitz (nee $ ?) ? 



Gerstaecker not having described but only renamed the 

 insect, we are thrown back upon Morawitz's description of 

 his loti in Horae Rossic. V, p. 68, in which the $ flagellum is 



