1869.] 



217 



? 

 ? 

 ? 

 ? 



Heracleum sphondylium, L. 

 Lonicera xjlosteura, L. 

 Galium mollugo, L. 

 Cichorium intybus, L. 

 Serratula, spec. 

 Carduus nutans, L. 

 Centaurea cyanus, L. 

 Solidago, spec. 

 Senecio sylvaticus, L. 



Pimpinella saxifraga, L. 

 magna, L 



? Nepeta cataria, L. 



? Plantago maritima, L. 



? Aristolochia clematidis, L. 



CJrtica urens, L. 

 ? Salix pentandra, L. 



alba, L. 



? triandra, L. 



? purpurea, L. 



? viminalis, L. 



lapponum, L. 



viscosus, L. 

 Campanula rapunculoides, L. 

 trachelium, L. 



Yinca minor, L. 

 Yerbascum nigrum, L. 

 Yeronica serpyllifolia, L. 



? * Larix europaea. 



?* Juglans regia. 



? Alisma plantago, L. 



! Arundo phragmites, L. 



? Poa nemoralis, L. 



? Festuca ovina, L. 



! Triticum junceum, Auct. 



? Orobanche rapum, Thuill. 



In such cases where the British Elora does not possess the identical 

 species on which the gall occurs abroad, we have mentioned the generic 

 name only as a hint to examine all the indigenous members of the genus. 



P.S. — The insertion of the genus Circcea in our last list was 

 founded in error. We know of no galls on any of the species. 



On Gyrinus cBneus, Steph. — In the " Entomologist's Annual " for 1869, p. 23, 

 Mr. Rye has noticed Gyrinus oeneus, Staph., stating that it is quoted and the 

 name adopted by Aube, in the Iconographie, &c. This is perfectly correct, but 

 I think that Aube's support of Stephens' species must be shelved altogether, 

 for Aube's aneus is certainly not Stephens' ceneus, as a glance at the two 

 descriptions renders indubitable. In short, Aube committed an error in citing 

 G. ceneus, Steph., as identical with the insect he himself described under the same 

 name. How Aube came to make so curious a mistake, it would be useless to 

 speculate on here. G. oeneus, Aube, as noticed in the " Annual," is recognized 

 generally as Dejeanii, Brulle, a species confined to the south of Europe. It remains 

 then to ascertain what Stephens' ceneus is, and I fear that we shall only find that 

 this is one of the numerous cases in which Stephens' work must be considered as 

 non-existent. 



Stephens, in 111. Mandib., ii, 95, quotes Gr, ceneus of Leach, M.S.S., 1842. Suffrian, 

 in the best paper which has yet been produced on the European Gyrini, informs us 

 that he has received from Dr. Leach an example of G. ceneus, Leach, M.S., and that 

 it is a specimen of G. opacus, Sahl. Bearing in mind this, then we refer to Stephens, 

 expecting to find a corroboration of this ; but no, his descriptions indicate un- 

 doubtedly (as far as they indicate anything) that Gyrinus ceneus, Steph.^G. marinus, 

 Gyl]., while Gr. marinus, Steph. = G. opacus, Sahl., and this, though he not only 

 quotes without doubt Dr. Leach's ceneus as his own ceneus, but gives localities 

 where Dr. Leach captured the species. Hence it is better not to notice Stephens' 

 ceneus at all, or we shall introduce to our continental friends a discrepancy in 

 Stephens' work not at all likely to increase his prestige with them.— D. Sharp, 

 Thornhill, Ith Jounuary, 1869. 



