148 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



[June 



COLEOPTERA. 



I send you herewith a few beetles, and shall be glad if you can name 

 them for me. In December last I received a clutch of four eggs of the 

 Wood Sandpiper from Tornea, Lapland. The eggs in question were 

 taken in 1891. On January 4th last, on opening my cabinet I found 

 amongst the lining of cotton wool seven grubs. They were hidden in 

 the wool, and whenever I disturbed one and brought it to the surface it 

 immediately buried itself again. I took them all out and put them in a 

 box with some wool and kept them. They apparently did not eat any- 

 thing, being, I suppose, full fed ; and on the 20th the first turned to 

 pupa, and by the 30th the whole seven turned. The first beetle emerged 

 on April 19th, and three others between 12th and 21st ; the other three 

 have not yet emerged. The curious part of it appears to me that out 

 of the same pupa case on the 12th there emerged a beetle and a larva. 

 I am certain of this fact that there were originally only seven of the 

 larvae. They were much larger than the small larva? in box 1. I send 

 you the whole lot for your inspection, and have numbered the boxes. 



Box 1. — Empty pupa case and larva, with beetle that emerged on 

 April 12th. 



Box 2. — Four beetles; one emerged on April 12th, and three between 

 12th and 21st. 



Box 3. — Three empty pupa cases, insect emerging between April 12th 

 and 21st. 



Box 4. — Remaining three pupae. 



— Herbert Massey, Didsbury, April 22nd, 1894. 



The species accompanying this interesting communication appears to 

 be Anthrenus varius. The larva differs slightly from that of A. museomm 

 in being of a brighter yellow colour, but in other respects it is very 

 similar. I do not think it can be regarded as a British insect, and the 

 precise information given by our correspondent would tend to confirm 

 this view. We thank Mr. Massey. — G. A. L. 



Sphodrus Leucophthalmus, L. — In our last issue Mr. B. Kendrick 

 favoured us with further particulars respecting the capture of this 

 species at Warrington. Having previously replied to his query con- 

 cerning the term " leucophthalmus " [British Naturalist, 1891, page 198), 

 I had dismissed the subject. However, as he again raises the point, it 

 may be as well to state that, although the term signifies "white-eyed " 

 (from Greek Xevxog, white, and 6q>Sa\uog, eye), this feature is not con- 

 stant. Very few of the specimens which have passed under my notice 

 can be said to possess white eyes. As a matter of fact, I have one only 

 in my own collection, and that was captured by myself in Oxford Road. 

 I should be inclined to regard the whiteness or transparency more as a 

 symptom of disease than a characteristic. With regard to the reddish 



