18 [June, 
it will be noticed from my i-emarks that Thomson places them in diflPerent genera,— 
Eriglenus and Gaurodytes. These genera (as Schaum remarks) most certainly cannot 
be retained, being founded only on the differences in the shape of the lacinisB 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 lacinse varies 
in the other species, and in Agaius ajSmis is pretty nearly intermediate. The 
structure of the claws in the males of affi,nis and unguicularis is similar ; and 
is correctly enough described by Schaum in his description of A. afmis ; 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 
PaykuU'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. „ o#ms, Payk., Th. (Gawod^fes). 
~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 j 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 thi-ee 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 Maltliinus. 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. 
sanguinolentxis, Wat. Cat. 
Common in woods and plantations all over the country. 
2. bigfuitatus, Linn., Thomson. 
*marginatus, Latr., Kies., Wat. Cat. 
Generally distributed and common. 
* Kiesenwetter cites Cnntkaris biguttata of Linneeus under the head of Maltliinus biguttula, 
Panz. Of course, if the Linnaean description really does apply to the species known as biguttula, Panz., 
Kiesenwetter should have adopted the Linnsean name for that species in place of Fanzer's more 
recent one. 
