316 
Psyche 
[December 
bauti McL. also occurs in the same locality (Wadi Digla), 
this might equally be Roux’s Necrophilus. The larva of Nina 
joppana sp. n. is also very similar to the present larva as 
will be seen.” Neither of these statements seems to me to 
furnish adequate reasons for introducing the name Ptero- 
croce storeyi. There are really two questions involved, 
namely: Is Roux’s larva Necrophylus arenarius the same 
as Schaum’s Necrophilus arenarius ? and is Schaum’s N. 
arenarius the same as Withycombe’s Pterocroce storeyi? 
If both questions admit of an affirmative answer, Roux’s 
and Withycombe’s species are obviously identical. 
The first question is the more complicated, since it in- 
volves a problem of fact and one of nomenclature. It is true 
that Roux’s drawing is crude, but it was made on a journey 
and from an insect whose true affinities were quite unsus- 
pected. Even the editor (Audouin) in the above-mentioned 
foot-note remarks that “the drawing by the author leaves 
much to be desired.” But who expects drawings made nearly 
a century ago to represent minute structural details with 
the accuracy demanded by the present-day entomologist? 
The position of the forelegs and shape of the abdomen in 
Roux’s Fig. 3, criticized by Eltringham, are of little signi- 
ficance because such distortions may be due to the method 
of mounting or the state of preservation. The more serious 
discrepancies in the enlarged head (Fig. 4), especially the 
swollen basal antennal joints and small hairs on the inner 
borders of the mandibles, are in all probability due to faulty 
observation. These characters are not indicated in the draw- 
ing of the whole specimen (Fig. 3), which would have to be 
regarded as the first and more authentic figure. It should 
also be noted that even in the excellent illustrations of 
Eltringham and Withycombe the joints of the very delicate 
antennae beyond the first are not indicated, and an entomolo- 
gist of the year 2030 might say that these organs consist of 
a single basal joint with a long apical bristle. There is really 
no basis for Withycombe’s statement that Roux’s larva may 
be the unknown larva of Nina chobauti, since the “neck” 
of N. joppana is distinctly shorter and it is therefore more 
probable that the congeneric chobauti would have a “neck” 
of the same or very similar dimensions. The fact that Wil- 
