APPENDIX. 579 
“Mr. Haworth spent a day with me about a month ago. He left me a speci- 
men of what appears to be Dytiscus minimus of Schrank . . .. He left me like- 
wise a Gyrinus very like natator, with rufous elytra... . Idon’t recollect whether 
we made out the Copris you took at Landguard-fort. I had received one of 
the same species from Dillwyn, and named it reticulatus. I since find by com- 
paring it with Gyllenhal’s insects, that it is Scar. Xiphias of Paykull, Copris 
nuchicornis of Sturm, Illiger, and Panzer, but not of E. B..... I have now 
given you all the entomological intelligence my budget contains. A later 
letter from my friend Marsham tells me he had no success in that way in his 
late expedition, I shall hope to see something new in Norfolk, whither I am 
going for a month next Monday fortnight: I am sure I shall, at least, in 
Hooker's cabinet: so that if you write between the 20th of Sept. and the 20th 
of Nov., your letter must be directed to me, Rev. Dr. Sutton’s, Lower Close, 
Norwich, I shall not forget to inform you of what occurs in my way .... I 
hope you will do what you hint at — take a walk Barham-way next summer. 
I think I could meet you on the road, at least as far as Cambridge, and 
accompany you here, 
“Believe me, &c.” 
“Barham, March 22, 1807. 
* Dear Sir, —I don’t wonder at your surprise at my long silence ; yet the 
reason of it is contained in your favour, for which I thank you the more, 
because I do not deserve it. You say —‘ The fact is, that for the two months 
succeeding my last I was so occupied with wn-entomological affairs that I had 
not leisure to look at an insect.’ This has been precisely my case... . 
I have boxes of insects both from Haworth and Hooker to name, which I 
‘am afraid the owners think I have cribbed; and when I shall hare leisure to 
look them over and return them, I cannot tell: so I trust you will accept of this 
my apology, In London, I went over Sir Joseph’s Staphylini; but there was 
nothing very remarkable amongst them except S. aureus, which is of the same 
family with S. murinus, &c. I found several non-descript species in Mr. 
M‘Leay’s cabinet, which he purchased from the Leverian Museum, and one 
large and blue one from old Drury’s cabinet. Another piece of entomological 
news I can tell you,—that M‘Leay has purchased all Donoyan’s foreign 
insects — a most valuable addition to his collection, which in value falls not very 
far short of Francillon’s. I will now endeavour to answer your letter... .” 
“Barham, April 1, 1807. 
“Dear Sir, — Your box arrived here safe last Thursday or Friday without 
any damage of consequence .... I have looked over the contents of your 
box and Mr. Watson’s, but have not yet had leisure to compare either with my 
own cabinet ; but the following in your parcel at the first glance seem to me 
new:—No. 4, Carabus scitulus, No. 14, Dytiscus scitulus—a very pretty 
species. No. 19, Haliplus mucronatus? Ihave one very near it, I am sure. 
No. 20, Helophorus longipalpis, appears to me quite a new insect, and not Ayd. 
longipalpis of E. B. . . . « No. 41, Catheretes Junci and nitidus, are both 
new to me, except one be in Sheppard’s cabinet. 44 is new to me. 76, Cur- 
culio Geranit, new to me as British. Apion, Nos. 81, 82. 93. 96, seem to me 
all new. 111, Mordella picea, new tome. 138, Staph. fulvipennis, new I think; 
139 also, and 144. Aleochara, No. 160, is a very pretty species ; the pile 
glitters like silver in certain lights, 194: I believe this may be distinct from 
levior; 197, also, is new I think. I don’t think what you have sent me as Antho- 
phagus caraboides is that insect; it seems to me to come nearer to Anth, alpinus. 
There are many others, concerning which I am dubious, but shall tell you more 
when I can compare them with my own inseets . . . My entomological studies 
Bian 
