218 



[Febroary, 



Occurrence vti Britain of Homalota rvfotestacea, Kraatz. — I have identified an 

 insect taken by Mr. G. C. Champion (by casual sweeping in Headley Lane, Mickle- 

 hanij in the month of April) with tlie above-mentioned elegant species, of which a 

 description will be found in Ins. Dontschl., ii, p. 245, 4-8. 



It belongs to Dr. Kraatz's 4th group of the genus, in which the six penultimate 

 joints of the antenna? are strongly transverse, the elytra are larger than the thorax, 

 the abdomen is parallel, &c. The normal size appears to be about that of H. 

 elongatula, and the whole insect is elongate, linear, with smooth shining abdomen, 

 and quadrate thorax. In colour it is pitchy-brown, with the antenna?, front of 

 head, legs, and apex of abdomen testaceous ; the thorax is rufo-testaceous, and 

 the abdomen has the 5th segment and the margins of some of the other segments 

 usually pitchy. 



Mr. Champion's insect seems to difier from Kraatz's description solely in size, 

 it being considerably smaller than 1^ lin. (Germ.). — E. C. Rye, 7, Park Field, 

 Putney, S.W., January, 1869. 



I^ote on Balaninus cerasorum and B. ruhidus. — Referring to my remarks upon 

 these two insects in the " Annual " for 1869, I may add that M. J, Desbrochers 

 dos Loges, in his recently commenced monograph of the European Balaninidxe and 

 Anthonomidoi (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France, viii, 1868, 358 et seq.) gives them 

 as separate species without the slightest commentary of suspicion as to the possi- 

 bility of their identity. He refers to the sexes of each, and gives for ruhidus (on 

 account of the slight sexual difference in the length of its rostrum, which he notes) 

 the following additional male characters : — " Pygidium more exposed and pubescent, 

 and Butural angle of elytra more marked." M. des Loges, in addition to the 

 characters mentioned by me, states that the eyes are farther apart and the frontal 

 depression is deeper in ruhidus than in cerasorum; he also refers to a difference in 

 the club of the antennae of the two insects, which he describes as oval, slightly 

 elongate, acuminate at the apex, and sub-rotundate at the base in the former, and 

 merely as oval and contracted at each extremity in the latter. 



M. des Loges adopts the name of tesselatus, Fourcroy, for the insect known to 

 us as B. turhatus, and reinstates Marsham's glandiwuy which is much prior in date 

 to vcnosus, Germ. — Id. 



Note on the Donada ge^iiculata and D. IcBvicollis of Thomson. — The reference to 

 these species, from the Zoological Record, to which I drew attention at page 198 

 of the present volume, though correct in fact, is not snflBciently explanatory. 



An examination of Thomson's descriptions (Sk. Col. viii, p. 123) shews that 

 the former of them is the D. aquatica of Waterh. Cat. {Comari, Ahrens, Suffr.), and 

 the latter is the universally recognized D. seHcea {ProteuSy Steph.). D. aquatica of 

 Linurrus, which Mr. Waterhouso has identified, by means of the collection of that 

 author, with the insect known to us by that name, is refen-ed to dentipes^ Gyll., by 

 Thomson, who remarks that the so-called original examples of aquatica have little 

 or no weight, since Mr. Waterhouse gives Comari, Suffr., as a synonym of that 

 species, notwithstanding Linnaons' description clearly shows that he had deritipes 

 before him, under which species Gyllenhal also quotes Linna?ua' aquatica. 



LinuDeus' sericea Thomson considers inapplicable to any Swedish species, on 



