18 



[June, 



it will be noticed from my remarks that Thomson places them in diflferent genera,-— 

 Eriglenus and QaiMrodLytes. These genera (as Schaum remarks) most certainly cannot 

 be retained, being founded only on the differences in the shape of the laciniae of the 

 metasternum. Now, if A. guttatus and femoralis be examined, it will be found 

 their difference in this respect is very evident, but the shape of the lacinae varies 

 in the other species, and in Agahus affinis is pretty nearly intermediate. The 

 structure of the claws in the males of affinis and unguicularis is similar ; and 

 is correctly enough described by Schaum in his description of A. affinis ; and 

 incorrectly by Thomson in the descriptions of the two species. I should add that 

 Schaum*s description of A. affinis (Ins. Deutsch., i, ii, p. 110) refers without doubt 

 to the species I am inclined to consider Thomson's unguicularis. Affinis is one of 

 Paykull's species, and Thomson is therefore likely to be right in his identification 

 of it. In this case the synonymy will be as follows : — 



1. Agahus (Eriglenus) unguicularis, Th., Sk. Col., ix, p. 101. 



affinis, Schaum (and of British collections). 



2. „ affimis, Tayk., Th. (Gaurodytes). 

 — D. Sharp, Thornhill, Dumfries, May 6th, 1868, 



Notes on the British species of Malthodes. — Till Herr von Kiesenwetter under- 

 took the revision of the European species of Malthodes, that genus was one of the 

 most neglected ; this arose principally from the fact that the different species 

 composing it greatly resemble one another, and consequently are difficult to dis- 

 tinguish. Kiesenwetter, by examining the structure of the abdominal segments in 

 the male, has discovered and pointed out characteristics which serve readily to 

 separate the different species, as far at least as the males go ; the females are still 

 most difficult to determine with certainty, and the one fact that they differ some- 

 times very considerably from their males, added to the other that three or four 

 species often occur together, does not diminish the difficulty. Indeed I scarcely 

 can understand how Kiesenwetter or any other entomologist could have accom- 

 plished the task satisfactorily, had the males been without well-marked characters, 

 as is the case with the very closely allied genus Malthinus. It must be added that 

 the structure of the terminal segments in the males is subject to little or no 

 variation, and is of so marked a character as to leave no room for doubting the 

 distinctness of the species. The following list of our species will probably prove to 

 be incomplete, but is, I think, the best that can be now given : — 



1. minimus, Linn., Fall., Kies. 



sanguinolemtus, Wat. Cat. 

 Common in woods and plantations all over the country. 



2. 'biguttatus, Linn., Thomson. 



*marginatus, Latr., Kies., Wat. Cat. 



Generally distributed and common. 



* Kiesenwetter cites Cantharit bigutiata of Linnaeus under the head of Malthinu* biguttula, 

 Panz. Of course, if the Linnaean dest rii)tion really does apply to the species linown biguttula, Fanz., 

 Kiesenwetter should have adopted the Linnaean nanae for that epecieB in place of I'anzer'fl niuit 

 recent one. 



