1^2 „, 
Observations on Necrophorus microcephalus, Thorns.— Rerr Michow (Be( 
Enfc. Zeit., X, p. 411) makes some remarks upon this species, entirely inaccorda' 
with my observations upon the subject in the " Entomologist's Annual " for Ic 
and of which I add a translation, as likely to interest British Coleopterista. 
"Among a great number of Necrophorus ruspator, Er., taken by m 
Pomerania, is a <? exactly agreeing with the diagnosis of microceijhalus, ThonI 
moreover, amongst these same N. ruspator, are two ? , noticeable for their st 
and delicate build of body (analogous to microcephalus, <? ). These ? had the r 
of the trochanter, as in the larger ruspator ? , thin, pointed or obtuse ; bn 
believed that I found a constant differential character for the small ? in 
structure of the clypeus, whereby I referred them to the microcephalus of Thorns 
whose diagnosis (clypeus of the J with a membranous depression in the middle 
was inclined to complete thus :-" clypeus of the ? with a membranous depress 
near the anterior margin." But, after having examined my other species 
Necrophorus, I am inclined to doubt the value of this as a diagnostic for ^ as . 
as ? . Large and small examples of N. sepultor, Charp, exhibit characters simi 
to those of ruspator; thus,-in l^vge S sepultor the inner apex of the trochanter 
strongly developed, and projects laterally, whilst in small specimens it does i 
project laterally, and the projection sometimes entirely disappears, thus i 
proximating to the?; the clypeus, also, in the larger ^ has a deep membrane 
depression, reaching to the posterior margin, whilst in the smaller specimens t 
depression only reaches the middle. I have, moreover, a $ which forms a transiti 
from the largest to the smallest <? sepultor. in the structure of the apex of 
trochanters and of its clypeus. In the commoner species of Necrophorus, tl 
straoture of the clypeus and trochanters generally varies too much (as well in i 
S as the ? ) for those parts to afford valid differential characters. Moreover, as 
that genus the ^universally exhibits a preponderance of development in build 
body, it is evident to me that our species individually exhibit in their smaller mal 
a form which, whilst approximating very closely to the female type in gener 
structure, also comes very near that type in the slighter development of individu 
organs, without thereby forming a separate species. In this view I am material 
assisted by the fact that these smaller varieties exactly agree, as to pattern of tl 
elytra, with the larger forms to which they specifically belong ; whilst all the sped, 
of Necrophorus that are acknowledged to be good, and exhibit other constant ar 
differential characters, are very distinctly separable by the elytra! marking 
If It be possible to indicate a like connexion, through intermediate form 
between N. gallicus and N. fossor (for which I have not sufficient material 
then the former will constitute the type and the latter the less developed form ( 
the same species."-E. C. Rye, 10, Lower Park Fields, Putney, S.W., Nove>r,be. 
1869. 
Note on Microptinus (Nitpus) gonospermi.-Uekn-iug to my remarks upon th 
supposed British origin of certain examples of this insect in the Annual for 187C 
I may observe that I havejust received a letter from Mr. Syme (too late for in 
corporation in that publication), wherein he says that M. gonospermi must not b, 
put in the British lists on his authority, for he has no idea when he took it 
certainly not in Orkney, where he took Niptus crenatus and no other of the Ptinidw 
