a ae Av ie utes ae Wea

; Aan ie lan ; Ty ) Os 7 " eo : ae 0 ise a

ne |

Do 17

my, Sern

RVers

ih Ratt - Phu.

ae oe

4 . " MiP. 1 a\an

5, hots a ni

m es i) o i

amg

ye ma J

Ta), ur ys ~y | aoe

oe ih A 7 na wie 4 ae oe

my, P ey ro - : a, a ii ee |

oe) 7 a ye) | ERT

7 ce > Te tae di my LR a:

ae : : 7 ea) 7 aul 7 y ‘

m0 yA . Or ae - as Cana ye yak : v Ai Bs wy a : as ; % ; ; ‘hi

a i ‘ian \ Gai! oye ih ee i chy; Oo eee . a nt @

~ i) vie ay § ve : f : - 1 : HN a ein i: 7 a8 : Hl | : im 8 oo

an a " : Ne an a q 4 MS _ ; 7 Ri : ; 7 log

ee ig Mi PO hat at | ; in og oTy b aie : i Po i . sa) 7 ve

i by y : a : i) 6 7 _ en ME Ant : ay Di a |

- ' ie

-. 7

vt fet te

oe | i i) Fi: (meee A ita Ue ath : Tak aa a ren

i ei rh

7 7 a a Che é 7 mai. rai e = an _ a = ; 2 7 : by in i mA

‘ a Vi: wi 4 be any here) ane mu i nis ie a ui rin '

a) ral ty ne | i 1

f : 7 a 7 rhe a neve, vel he Anas) Li i rr nF : it

i : 7 ’ un act i 7 a + Tae ie : ra a my

7 | J A Al : i A, th ” an a ) _ aa t } a a 7 ae i \

a A MRS MOON Ce rk 7 7

Pee lhe

" a A ¥ a Pe + ‘ ey fy sod. Tir ‘yl a 7 , i?

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON.

THE

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

vi ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

FOR THE YEAR

1871.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, FARRINGDON ROAD,

SOLD AT THE SOCIETY’S APARTMENTS, 12, BEDFORD ROW,

AND BY LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER,

PATERNOSTER ROW.

1871.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, E.Ce

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

COUNCIL FOR 1871.

AuFreD R. Wautace, Esq., F.Z.S., &c. . . . . President.

J. W. Dunnine, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., F.Z.S., &.

EC TES SLAINTON, USQs, Hoh.) &Cs « « « « « | Ys Presidnt,

J. O. Westwoop, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., &c.

SamvureL Stevens, Esq., F.L.S.

Rosert M’Lacuuan, Esq., F.L.8. .

Frrpinanp Grout, Esq. . ... .

. Treasurer.

Secretaries.

A. G. Butter, Esq., F.L.S., &e. }

AurEx. Fry, Esq., F.L.S. . © Sones (¢ |

Peel HIGGINS, HSq:,MERIC:Ss 9% a let Other Members

Major F. J. Sipnry Parry, F.L.S., &e. . ; r of Council.

Hee ARCO HisGesphiclaSssuuGe ie ie =) fey te

Epwarbp SaunpDERS, Esq., F.L.8. . . . . .

THE

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

1834-19170"

———

To the Public. To Members.

First Series, 5 volumes (1834-1849)......... Price £6 O 0 £410 0

Second Series, 5 volumes (1850-1861)...... 8 0 0 6 0 0

Third Series, 5 volumes (1862-1869)........ TLIO TO 8 5 0

The Transactions for the year 1868......... L070 015 0

% Ay ISGO)ccccsone 12 0 016 6

4 * 1S(Omvccstees i 38! 0 0

9 % IES Ya saononc 15 0 018 9

Volume 5 of the First Series can no longer be obtained separately; the

volumes of the First, Second, or Third Series may.

Longicornia Malayana may be obtained

separately 5 Bee 6 6 6 Go oO oleate 14 © £119 0

Phytophaga Malayana, Pt.1, Apostasicera

may be obtained separately . . . . 016 0 0 12° 10

The Journal of Proceedings is bound up with the Transactions, but

may be obtained separately, by members gratis, by the public, price One

Shilling per Sheet.

Members and Subscribers resident more than fifteen miles from London,

who have paid the subscription for the current year, are entitled to receive

a copy of the Transactions for the year without further payment, and

they will be forwarded free, by post, to any address within the United

Kingdom.

Members and Subscribers resident in or within fifteen miles from Lon-

don, are entitled to a copy of the Transactions for the current year at half

the price to the public, which copy may be obtained on application to the

Librarian.

Gay

CONTENTS.

Explanation of the Plates

Errata -

List of Members .

MEMOIRS.

IX.

XIII.

A Monograph on the Ephemeride. By the Rev. A. E.

Eaton, B.A. A F 5 4 5

New Species of Diurnal Lepidoptera from South gia

Central America. By W. C. Hewrrson, F.L.S.

Descriptions of a new genus, and six new species of

Pierine. By A. G. Burumr, F.L.S., &e. :

On the dispersal of non-migratory Insects by atmospheric

agencies. By Aupert MUuuer, F.R.G.S., &e.

Notes on some British species of Oxypoda, with descrip-

tions of new species. By Davin Suarp, M.B.

Observations on Immature Sexuality and Alternate Gen-

eration in Insects. By B. T. Lown, M.R.C.S8., Eng. .

On additions to the Atlantic Coleoptera. By T. Vernon

Wo taston, M.A., F.L.S. : : k :

On a new genus and species of Coleoptera, belonging to

the family Lucanide, from the Sandwich Islands. By

Cuas. O. WATERHOUSE . C : ;

An examination of the arrangement of Macro- ite

introduced in England by Mr. Doubleday, and a sug-

gestion as to its origin; with some strictures on

synonymic Lists. By W. Arnotp Lewis :

Descriptions of some new Exotic species of Lucanide.

By Prof. J. O. Westwoop, M.A., F.L.S.

Descriptions of a new genus, and of two new species of

Longicorn Coleoptera. By H. W. Barus, F.Z.S8., &e.

Descriptions of three new species of Cicindelide. By H.

W. Barus, F.Z.S., &e. . < - . 7

Descriptions of new genera, and of some recently dis-

covered species of Australian Phytophaga. By J. 8.

Baty, F.L.S. : ; ; : ; : ;

vili MEMOIRS (continued) .

PAGE.

XIV. Descriptions of five new species, and a new genus of Diur-

nal Lepidoptera from Shanghai. By A. G. Buruer,

F.L.S., &. . . A - : 5 C 401

XV. On some black species of Cantharis with red nedas aa

filiform antenne. By Cuas. O. WATERHOUSE . - 405

XVI. Apercu statistique sur les Névroptéres Odonates. Par le

Baron E. pe Serys-Lonecuamps, Mem. Hon. Soe. Ent.

Lond. . - - : 5 . 409

XVII. On the forms of Fitna Prifolii, with some remarks on

the question of specific difference, as opposed to local or

phytophagic variation, in that genus. By T. H. Brices,

iB 2AN ae S - . 417

XVIII. Remarks concerning the identification of Mipsis for-

micaleo, formicarium, and formicalyna of Linné. By

R. McLacuuay, F.L.S., Sec. Ent. Soc. . : » 441

Proceedings for 1871 2 ; < : - - i.

Index : c : - ; F “ 2 . . lxxvil.

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES.

Plates I-VI. . . : Ae . . a . See page 158.

Plate VII. . f . 2 A n A 2 See pages 169-173.

Plates VIII.-IX. ° : . ° “ = . See page 373.

ERRATA.

Page 2, line 16, for * 1858-9” read ‘* 1860.”

Page 123, line 4, for ‘*fuscus,” read “ fusco.”’

Page 164, line 7, for ‘‘ Centroptilum pheops,”’ read “* Baetis pheops.”

Kist of Members

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF LONDON.

DECEMBER 31sr, 1871.

LIST OF MEMBERS

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF LONDON.

———

Honorary Members,

Guérin-Méneyille, F. E., Paris.

Hagen, H. A., Cambridge, U.S.A.

Leconte, John L., Philadelphia.

Milne-Edwards, H., Paris.

Pictet, J. C., Geneva.

Schiddte, J. C., Copenhagen.

Selys-Longchamps, E. de, Liége.

Siebold, C. T. E. yon, Munich.

Zeller, P. C., Stettin.

Zetterstedt, J. W., Lund.

( x1 )

ORDINARY MEMBERS AND SUBSCRIBERS.

Marked * are Original Members.

Marked + have compounded for their Annual Subscriptions.

Marked 8 are Annwal Subscribers.

Date of

Election.

1866 Adams, Henry, F.L.S., 19, Hanover Villas, Notting Hill, W.

1867 §. Archer, F., 3, Brunswick Street, Liverpool.

1856 Armitage, Edward, A.R.A., 3, Hall Road, St. John’s Wood, N.W.

1857 Atkinson, W. S., M.A., F.L.S., Caleutta.

* + Babington, Professor C. C., M.A., F.R.S., &c., Cambridge.

1850 Baly, J. S., F.L.S., The Butts, Warwick.

1865 Barton, Stephen, 32, St. Michael’s Hill, Bristol.

1867 S. Bates, Frederick, 15, Northampton Street, Leicester.

1861 Bates, Henry W., F.L.S., F.Z.S., 40, Bartholomew Rd., N.W.

1851 Beaumont, Alfred, Steps Mills, Huddersfield.

1866 Bicknell, Perey, Beckenham, S.E.

1854 Birt, Jacob, 30, Sussex Gardens, Hyde Park, W.

1864 Blackmore, Trovey, The Hollies, Wandsworth, S.W.

1849 + Bladon, J., Albion House, Pont-y-pool.

* Blomefield, Rey. L., M.A., F.U.8., &e., 19, Belmont, Bath.

1841 Bond, Fred., F.Z.S., 203, Adelaide Road, N.W.

1860 Bonyouloir, Vicomte Henri de, 15, Rue de l'Université, Paris.

1865 Borthwick, Richard, Alloa, N.B.

* Bowerbank, J. 8., LL.D., F.R.S., &c., 2, East Ascent, St.

Leonards. :

1852 + Boyd, Thomas, 17, Clapton Square, N.H.

1867 Boyd, W. C., Cheshunt, Herts.

1856 Braikenridge, Rey. G. W., M.A., F.L.S., Clevedon, Bristol.

1870 Briggs, Thos. Hy., B.A., 6, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.

1849 §. Brown, Edwin, Burton-on-Trent.

1869 §. Brown, N. E., Brighton Road, Red Hill.

1862 Browne, Rev. T. H., M.A., F.G.S., High Wycombe, Bucks.

1855 Burnell, E. H., 32, Bedford Row, W.C.

1868 + Butler, A. G., F.L.S., F.Z.S., 17, Oxford Road, Ealing, W.

1860 Candéze, Dr. E., Glain, Liége.

1865 Carey, A. D., Ahmedabad, India.

1868 Carrington, Charles, Westwood Park, Forest Hill, §.E.

1871 §. Champion, G. C., 274, Walworth Road, S.E.

1871 Charlton, Ernest §., Hesleyside, Bellingham, Hexham.

1867 Clarke, Alex. H., 16, Furnival’s Inn, E.C.

1865 §. Clarke, C. B., M.A., F.L.S., Calcutta.

Date of

Election.

1865

1853

1867

1865

1868

1865

1867

1849

1853

1837

1855

1865

1867

1871

1849

1865

1869

1865

1858

1865

1869

1870

1869

1855

1865

1857

1865

1855

1850

1842

1866

1865

1846

1850

1868

1864

1846

1866

LIST OF MEMBERS.

Colquhoun, Hugh, M.D., Anchorage, Bothwell, N.B.

Cooke, Benj., 119, Stockport Road, Manchester.

Cox, Colonel C. J., Fordwich House, Canterbury.

Cox, Herbert E., Rosenheim, Reigate.

Crotch, G. R., M.A., University Library, Cambridge.

Cumming, Linneus, B.A., The College, Cheltenham.

Curzon, E. P. R., Brixham House, Brixham.

Dallas, W. S., F.L.S., Geological Society, Somerset House, W.C.

Darwin, Charles, M.A., F.R.S., &c., Down, Beckenham, S.E.

Davies, A. E., Ph. D., F.L.S., &c., Lowesmoor, Worcester.

Dawson, John, Carron, Falkirk, Stirlingshire.

De Grey and Ripon, Earl, K.G., F.R.S., &¢., 1, Carlton

Gardens, 8.W.

Devonshire, Duke of, K.G., F.R.S., &c., 78, Piccadilly, W.

Dohrn, Dr. C. A., Pres. Ent. Verein, Stettin.

Dorville, H., Alphington, Exeter.

Doubleday, Henry, Epping.

Druce, Herbert, 1, Circus Road, St. John’s Wood, N.W.

Duer, Yeend, Cleygate House, Esher.

Duncan, Prof. P. M., M.D., F.R.S., &c., Lee, S.E.

Dunning, J. W., M.A., F.L.S., F.Z.S., 24, Old Buildings,

Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.

D’Urban, W.S. M., F.L.S., 4, Queen’s Terrace, Mount Rad-

ford, Exeter.

Eaton, Rey. A. E., B.A., Andover.

Emich, Gustave d’, Pesth.

Farren, W., 10, Rose Crescent, Cambridge.

Fenning, George, Lloyds, H.C.

Fletcher, J. E., Pitmaston Road, St. John’s, Worcester.

Foot, A. W., M.D., 21, Lower Pembroke Street, Dublin.

Freeland, H. W., M.A., Chichester.

French, D. J., F.L.S., &c., Chatham.

Fry, Alexander, F.L.8., Thornhill House, Dulwich Wood

Park, 8.E.

Fust, H. Jenner, jun., M.A., Hill Court, Berkeley.

Gloyne, C. P., Jamaica.

Godman, F. D., M.A., F.L.S., &c., Park Hatch, Godalming.

Gorham, Rey. H.S., St. John’s Vicarage, Enfield.

Gould, J., F.R.S., &c., 26, Charlotte Street, Bedford Sq., W.C.

Gray, John, Wheatfield House, Bolton, Lancashire.

Gray, John Edw., Ph. D., F.R.S., British Museum, W.C.

Green, Philip, 11, Finsbury Circus, E.C.

Greene, Rev. J., M.A., Apsley Road, Redland, Bristol.

Grut, Ferdinand, Secretary, 9, King Street, Southwark, S.E.

Guyon, George, Southcliff Cottage, Ventnor.

Harold, Baron Edgar von, 52, Barerstrasse, Munich.

Harper, P. H., 30, Cambridge Street, Hyde Park Square, W.

Hewitson, W. C., F.L.S., F.Z.S., Oatlands, Weybridge.

Higgins, E. T., M.R.C.S., 24, Bloomsbury Street, W.C.

Date of

Election

1869

1859

1865

1864

1870

1869

1843

1869

1853

1865

1861

1865

1842

1861

1868

1865

1868

LIST OF MEMBERS. xill

Holdsworth, Edward, Shanghai.

Horne, Charles, Innisfail, Beulah Hill, 8.B.

Howitt, Godfrey, M.D., Collins Street East, Melbourne.

Hudd, A. E., 10, Burlington Buildings, Redland Park, Bristol.

Hume, William H.

Jacques, F. V., Chertsey Road, Redland, Bristol.

Janson, E. M., Las Lajas, Chontales, Nicaragua.

Janson, E. W., Librarian, 21, Fonthill Road, Tollington

Park, N.

Janson, O. E., 21, Fonthill Road, Tollington Park, N.

Jekel, Henri, 13, Rue de Lille, Paris.

John, Hvan, Llantrisant, Pontypridd.

Kirby, W. F., Royal Dublin Society, Kildare Street, Dublin.

*Knox, H. Blake, 2, Ulverton Place, Dalkey, Dublin.

Kuper, Rev. C. A. F., M.A., The Vicarage, Trelleck, Chepstow.

Lacerda, Antonio de, Bahia.

Lang, Capt. A. M., R.E., Civil Engineering College, Roorke,

India.

Latham, A. G., Weaste Hall, Pendleton, Manchester.

Lebour, G. A. L., F.R.G.S., Geological Survey Office, Jermyn

Street, S.W.

Lendy, Capt. A. F., F.L.S., Sunbury House, Sunbury, 8.W.

Lewis, W. Arnold, 4, Crown Office Row, Temple, E.C.

Lingwood, R. M., M.A., F.L.8., 1, Derby Villas, Cheltenham.

Llewelyn, J. T. D., M.A., F.L.S., Ynisygerwn, Neath.

Logan, R. F., Hawthornbrae, Duddingston, Edinburgh.

Lowe, W. H., M.D., Balgreen, Murrayfield, Edinburgh.

Lowsley, Lieut. Barzillai, R.E., Demerara.

Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., M.P., F.R.S., &¢., High Elms, Farn-

borough.

Lucas, B. J., Upper Tooting, 8.W.

M‘Caul, 8., B.C.L., Rectory House, London Bridge, E.C.

M‘Intosh, J.

M‘Lachlan, Robert, F.L.8., Secretary, 39, Limes Grove, Lewis-

ham, 8.E.

Marseul, L’Abbé S. A. de, Boulevard Pereire, 271, Paris.

Marshall, Rev. T. A., M.A., F.L.S., St. Albans.

Marshall, William, Elm Lodge, Clay Hill, Enfield.

Mathew, G. F., R.N., F.L.S., Raleigh House, Barnstaple.

May, J. W., Arundel House, Percy Cross, Fulham Road, 8.W.

Meek, Edward G., 4, Old Ford Road, E.

Melvill, J. Cosmo, B.A., 16, Back Square, Manchester.

Mercer, Albert, 38, Richmond Road, Islington, N.

Miskin, W. H., Supreme Court, Brisbane, Queensland.

Mniszech, Comte G. de, 22, Rue Balzac, Paris.

Moore, Frederic, 110, Oakfield Road, Penge, 8.E.

Mosse, G. Staley, 12, Eldon Road, Kensington, W.

Miller, Albert, F.L.8., Eaton Cottage, Sunny Bank Road, South

Norwood, 8.E.

xiv

Date of

Election

1870

1849

1869

1841

1840

1854

1869

1852

1870

1851

1867

1866

1870

1871

1865

1871

1857

1869

1865

1868

1861

1865

1866

1865

1861

1849

1865

1866

1870

1864

1862

1868

1847

1851

1852

1867

1853

1863

1850

1869

1848

s ee a sees

+ +a

mmm wm

LIST OF MEMBERS.

Murray, Rey. R. P., Mount Murray, Isle of Man.

Newman, Edward, F.L.S., F.Z.S., M. Imp. L.C. Acad.,7, York

Grove, Queen’s Road, Peckham, S.E.

Oberthur, Charles (fils), Rennes.

Owen, Richard, M.D., F.R.S., &c., British Museum, W.C.

Parry, Major F. J. Sidney, F.L.8., 18, Onslow Square, S.W.

Pascoe, Francis P., F.L.S., 1, Burlington Road, Westbourne

Park, W.

Pearson, W. H., Ivy Hall, Solihull, Birmingham.

Pickersgill, J. C., Hooley House, Coulsdon, Croydon.

Porritt, G. T., Clare Hill, Huddersfield.

Preston, Rey. T. A., M.A., The College, Marlborough.

Pryer, H. J. S., Yokohama, Japan.

Pryer, W. B., Shanghai.

Puls, J. C., Place de la Calandre, Ghent.

Raine, F., South Road, Durham.

Ransome, Robert James, Ipswich.

Riley, C. V., State Entomologist, St. Louis, Missouri.

Robinson, EH. W., 3, Bartholomew Road, N.W.

Robinson, W. Douglas, Kirkennan, Dalbeattie, N.B.

Rogers, W., 42, Old Town, Clapham, 8.W.

Rothney, G. A. J., Addiscombe.

Ruspini, F. O., Fulshaw Farm, Wilmslow, Cheshire.

Rylands, T. G., F.L.S., F.G.S., Highfields, Thelwall, Warring-

ton.

Salvin, Osbert, M.A., F.L.S., &c., 32, The Grove, Boltons, S.W.

Saunders, Edward, F.L.S., Hill Field, Reigate.

Saunders, G. S., Hill Field, Reigate.

Saunders, S. S., late H. M. Consul General, Ionian Islands.

Saunders, W. F., F.L.S., Hill Field, Reigate.

Saunders, W. Wilson, F.R.S., Tr. & V.P.L.S., &c., Hill Field,

Reigate.

Schaufuss, L. W., Ph. D., M. Imp. L. C. Acad., &c., Dresden.

Schrader, H. L., Shanghai.

Seaton, E. M., 28, Belsize Park, N.W.

Semper, Georg, Altona.

Sharp, David, M.B., Eccles, Thornhill, Dumfriesshire.

Shearwood, G. P., Cedar Lodge, Stockwell Park, S.W.

Shepherd, Edwin, Wallington, Surrey.

Sheppard, Augustus F., Rose Bank, Eltham Road, Lee, S.E.

Sheppard, Edward, F.L.S., 18, Durham Villas, Kensington, W.

Sidebotham, J., 19, George Street, Manchester.

Signoret, Dr. Victor, 51, Rue de Seine, Paris.

Smith, E. A., 27, Richmond Crescent, Islington, N.

Smith, Frederick, 27, Richmond Crescent, Islington, N.

Smith, Henley G., Warnford Court, E.C.

Spence, W. B.

Stainton, H. T., F.R.S., Sec. O.8., &c., Mountsfield, Lewis-

ham, S.E.

Date of

Election

1862

1837

1866

1854:

1850

1856

1866

1838

1853

1859

1869

1849

1866

1850

1870

1858

1863

1866

1850

1869

1845

1855

1868

1865

1849

1863

1843

1862

1866

LIST OF MEMBERS. xV

Stevens, John §., 38, King Street, Covent Garden, W.C.

Stevens, Samuel, F.L.S., Treaswrer, 28, King Street, Covent

Garden, W.C.

Swanzy, Andrew, 122, Cannon Street, E.C.

Thompson, Miss Sophia, Barn Hill, Stamford.

Thompson, Thomas, 14, Parliament Street, Hull.

Thomson, James, 28, Rue de l’ Université, Paris.

Thornborrow, W., 4, Provost Road, Haverstock Hill, N.W.

Thwaites, G.H. K., Ph. D., F.R.S., F.L.8., Ceylon.

Tompkins, H., 3, Colonnade, Worthing.

Trimen, Roland, F.L.S., Colonial Office, Cape Town.

Vaughan, Howard, 54, Chancery Lane, W.C.

Vaughan, P. H., Redland, Bristol.

- Verrall, G. H., The Mulberries, Denmark Hill, 8.E.

Walker, Francis, F.L.S., Elm Hall, Wanstead; N.E.

Walker, Rey. F. A., M.A., F.L.S., Elm Hall, Wanstead, N.E.

Wallace, Alexander, M.D., Trinity House, Colchester.

Wallace, Alfred R., F.LS., F.Z.S., &c., President, The

Glen, Grays, Essex.

Walsingham, Lord, M.A., F.Z.8., &c., 23, Arlington Street. W.

Ward, Christopher, Halifax.

Waring, 8S. L., The Oaks, Norwood, 8.E.

Waterhouse, C. O., British Museum, W.C.

Waterhouse, G. R., F.Z.S., &c., British Museum, W.C.

Websdale, C. G., 78, High Street, Barnstaple.

Weir, J. Jenner, F.L.S., 6, Haddo Villas, Blackheath, S.E.

Were, R. B., 35, Osborne Terrace, Clapham Road, S.W.

Westwood, Professor J. O., M.A., F.L.S., &c., Oxford.

White, F. Buchanan, M.D., Perth.

White, Rev. W. Farren, Stonehouse Vicarage, Gloucestershire.

Wilkinson, S. J., 16, Austin Friars, E.C.

Wix, William, Isbells, Reigate.

Wollaston, T. Vernon, M.A., F.L.8., 1, Barnepark Terrace,

Teignmouth, Devon.

Wormald, Perey C., 2, Clifton Villas, Highgate Hill, N.

Wright, Professor E. Perceval, M.A., M.D., F.L.S., &¢., 10

Clare Street, Dublin.

1865 §. Young, Morris, Free Museum, Paisley.

en Vege,

. ¥ Ly

7 i

ati 5 a ea

a ‘ unl

4 t

’ : : 4 re

; m

nen ii pass) YOU MME Bile

1 Posed y fie i. ay

. 6 y Re VERE ha ge

ar Ay yr, P

i . t

ac Sesh ha

Veen 4 ;

i" ; ;

teed

i a : >a

; ; ; f

ears ie

, oo | +.

: i Pay

; t

: f

7 e

yt i

f ur

Pty Al

THE

TRANSACTIONS

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

FOR THE YEAR 1871.

I. A Monograph on the Ephemeride. By the Rev. A.

K. Eaton, B.A.

{Read 5th December, 1870.}

Part I. The Nomenclature of the Hphemeride.

THE present communication is an introduction to a series

of papers on the Hphemeride. In these papers I hope

to give a detailed account of the organization and deve-

lopment of some characteristic British species of the

Family. My original plan was to treat of the British

Fauna alone. In the course of my investigations, how-

ever, I found that the nomenclature of the Family at

large was corrupt, and therefore I have been led to review

the synonymy of the whole group. In order to ac-

complish this, I have been obliged to give at second-

hand descriptions of many foreign species. These incor-

porated descriptions I have, for the sake of uniformity,

translated into Latin.

Jt is always difficult, and sometimes impossible, to

identify species by reference to mere colour descriptions

and admeasurement, without recourse to the distinctions

afforded by special structures. I have therefore avoided

the use of analytic tables and diagnoses for the determi-

nation of species.

TRANS, ENT. soc. 1871.—partTi. (MARCH.) B

2 Rey. A. H. Eaton’s Monograph

Structure has not hitherto received sufficient considera-

tion in descriptive publications; which makes it necessary

to examine all authentic specimens of described Hpheme-

ride extant in collections, before the synonymy of the

known species can be settled. With a view to reform,

I have examined the undermentioned collections. Lists

of the type specimens in each are given under the titles

of the works in which they were originally described.

Should I have opportunity, I will notice the contents of

the principal French and German collections in some

future part of my work.

Through the kindness of Dr. Gray, I had unlimited

access to the collections in the British Museum, com-

prising Stephens’ collection (see Steph. 1835-6), Mr.

Wollaston’s collection (see Hag. 1865), and the general

collection of Newroptera (see Walk. 1853 and 1858-9).

At the Linnean Society’s Library I examined the col-

lection of Linné (see Lin. 1746).

Mr. R. M’Lachlan has given me every assistance, by

placing in my hands his valuable foreign collection

(M’Lach. 1868, HEtn. 1871), and his British collection

(Etn. 1870), and making them to all mtents my own.

Through the hospitality of Mr. J. C. Dale, I had the

pleasure of spending several days in gathering informa-

tion concerning the geographical range of species in

his British collection, and in describing the rarities in

his foreign collection (see Htn. 1871).

In the Museum at Oxford, with the permission of

Professor Westwood, I inspected the University’s general

collection (Htn. 1871), Prof. Westwood’s collection( Westw.

1840), and Mr. A. Ronalds’ collection (Ron. 1836).

The cabinets of my own University contain no remark-

able Hphemeride.

Some Australian species, sent by Professor M’Coy, of

Melbourne, to Mr. F. Walker, were forwarded to me (Htn.

1871) ; and Mr. P. C. Wormald obliged me with the

loan of his collection.

At Geneva, M. A. E. Pictet very kindly submitted to

me the remains of Professor J. F. Pictet’s collection

(Pict. 1848-5), and some Spanish Hphemeride which he

had himself collected (Ed, Pict. 1865).

M. de Selys-Longchamps’ collection, containing valu-

able type specimens, was sent to me (see Lat. 1805;

Guer. 1829-43; Ramb. 1842; Hag. 1858-9, 1861, 1864;

Hin. 1871).

on the Hphemeride. 3

The late State Entomologist of Illinois entrusted me

with some authentic specimens of American species

which he transmitted for the British Museum (Walsh

1862-3) .

My own types of new species are placed in the British

Museum.

In the subjoined list of publications relating to the

Ephemeride, the titles of those which I have been unable

to collate are distinguished by asterisks prefixed; and

the names originated in each work are given after its

title. My thanks are due to Mr. G. R. Crotch, of the

Cambridge University Library, for the great assistance

he has rendered me in the preparation of the bibliogra-

phical portion of this paper; and I am also under great

obligations to Mr. J. C. Dale, Professor Westwood, Mr.

C. O. Waterhouse, and Mr. R. M’ Lachlan, for enabling me

to give references to scarce books.

Authors anterior to those of the seventeenth Century

are mentioned by Clutius (1634), and by Pictet

(1843-5). The following list is arranged in chronological

order, and the abbreviations employed in the citations

are given in brackets, immediately after the year of

publication.

1634 (Clut.). Aug. Cluyt, Opuse. duo singularia; ii. De Hemerobio sive

Ephemero, pp. 61-103.

1662 (Mey). J. de Mey, in J. Gédart’s Metamorph. et Hist. Nat. Ins.

i. Appendix, pp. 193-200.

1675 (Swam.). J. Swammerdamm, Ephemeri vita.— [See Tyson, 1681.)

*1680 (Bleg.). N. de Blegny, De quelques papillons qui paraissent une

fois tous les ans sur les bords de la Meuse; in Temple d’Esculape, An.

2e, p. 188 (Hag.).

1681, E. Tyson, (a translation of) Ephemeri vita, by J. Swammerdamm,

pp. 44, pls. 8, 4to.

*1718, J. J. Baier, De Ephemeri vita, Adagium medicinalium centuria,

pp. 54 (Hag.).

*1723 (Kul.). J. A. Kulmus, Yon einem gewissen Fisch-Insect; in

Bresl. Natur. u. Kunstgesch. pp. 292-3 (Hag.).

1735 (Lin. 8S. N. i). K. Linné, Systema Nature, ed. i—Insecta,....

Angioptera, .... Ephemera.

1737-8 (Swam.). J. Swammerdamm, Biblia Nature, i. 234-70; i.

pls. xiii-xy.

1740 (Lin. S. N. ii). K. Linné, Systema Nature, ed. ii., p. 60.

Gymnaptera.

1741 (Targ.). G. Targioni-Tozzetti, Lettera sopra una numerosissima

specie dei farfalle vedutasi in Firenze; pp. 32, frontisp. figs. 1-5.

4 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

1742 (Réaum.). R. A. F. de Réaumur, Des Mouches appellés Ephé-

méres ; Mém. pour servir 4 Vhist. des Ins. vi., pp. 457-522, pls. xlii-xlvi.

1746 (Col.). P. Collinson, Some observations on a sort of Libella or

Ephemeron; in Phil. Trans. vol. xliv., p. 329, pl. ii. 2-4.

1746 (Lin. F. 8. i). K. Linné, Fauna Suecica, ed. i. pp. 226-7, Nos.

750-5.

[In Linné’s own interleaved copy of this work, MS. names are written

before the index numbers ; viz. :—‘‘vulgata’’ before 750; ‘ bioculata”’

before 751; “mutica” after 752; ‘* culiciformis”’ before 753; “horaria”’

before 754, above “minima” erased; and ‘‘vespertina”’ before 755. Re-

ferences are made in the text to some of his earlier publications; viz. :—

after 751, Acta Upsal. (1736) p. 27.2; after 754, Act. Ups. p. 27. 3;

and to his Iter @land. (Hlandska Resa, 1745) p. 21.

In his cabinet are—2 @ sub. spurious, and 1 ¢ sub. ticketted 750

(perhaps by Linné junr.) of HE. vulgata; 2 g im. spurious, of L. margi-

nata; 1 @ sub. spurious, and 1 9? sub. ticketted nigra” in Linné’s

MS., of L. marginata; 2 9 im. spurious, labelled “ culiciformis,” of

a Cenis; 2 2 im. spurious, of C. dipterum; 1 g im. ticketted 751 (in

the same handwriting as the 750 under the Z. vulgata g sub.) of Siphlu-

rus Linneanus, nov. sp.; and 2 2 im., unlabelled, and spurious, of

Heptagenia elegans.

The Librarian of the Linnean Society (who rendered me every assist-

ance during my examination of the collection), thinks that the numbers

750 and 751 are Linné’s autograph, as the “ nigra’? undoubtedly is.

There is a close resemblance between these figures and certain others in

the handwriting in the Author’s own books. However, notwithstanding

that the tickets are apparently in Linné’s autograph, and the specimens

are seemingly Linnean, it is evident that the specimens ticketted 751 and

nigra are not authentic, because they altogether disagree with the diag-

noses 751 in F. §.i., and 1478 nigra in F. S. ii., respectively. The MS.

reference to ‘* Schaef. ic. 175, f. 1, 2” under E. bioculata (an entirely dif-

ferent insect from the one figured) in the Author’s own copy of 8. N.

Xll., suggests the possibility of the specimens in question haying been

placed by Linné in his cabinet after the publication of 8. N. xii.; and

if this were the case, these specimens having been newer than the

original types, it is likely that they may have been in a better condition

than those, and thus have stood a greater chance than they of being kept

by the owner.]

1747 (Lin. 8. N. v.). K. Linné, Systema Nature, ed. v. [Reprinted in

1748.] Ordo 3, Neuroptera, p. 62. E. maculata, E. minima.

1749 (Rees.). A. J. Résel, Insecten Belustigung. ii. 53-60, pl. xiii. 1-6,

[Pictet quotes certain names as of the authorship of Résel (whose de-

scriptions and figures are not named). These names probably originated

in C. Schwarz’s ‘‘ Nomenclator tiber die in den Réselschen Insect. Belust.

&¢.,”” which was published many years later (1793-1830.]

; *1753 (Pontop.). E. Pontoppidan, Det forste Férség paa Norges natur-

lige Historie. Vol. ii. ch. ii. (An edition in German, 1754, and another

in 1765; see Pontop. 1765).

1755 (De G.). K. de Geer, Observations sur les Ephéméres; in Mém.

Say. Htr. Acad. Paris, ii. 461-9. pl. xvii. 1-2.

*1757 (Schef.). J. C. Schaffer, Das fliegende Uferaas oder der Haft

&e., p. 84. [Reprinted in his ‘‘ Abhandlungen yon Insecten,’’ iii. 30, pl.

i.] (Hag. and Pict.).

on the Hphemeride. 5

1758 (Lin. S. N. x.). K. Linné, Systema Naturm, ed. x; i. 546-7. E.

vulgata, bioculata, culiciformis, horaria, mutica, vespertina.

[The author’s interleaved copy of S. N. x. contains the following MS.

notes and references :—

L.vulgata, Note; E. cauda 3-seta corpore luteo, alis hyalinis reticulatisque

[=E. danica, Mil. ?]; ref. after 750, Geof. 2, p. 238, n.1, Sulz. Ins. t.

17, f. 103. Note; H. ————, Res. ins. 2. aquat. t. 12, f.2,6. E.

cauda triseta alis albis margine exteriore fusco. Habitat Upsaliw, Fabri-

cius....Corpus fuseum [evidently marginata, L.]. On p. 547, and the op-

posite leaf—H. bioculata, ref. after 751, Geof. 2, p. 239, n. 5, t. 18, f. 42.

Note; 2 alis ut totum corpus pallide flavescentibus. E. culiciformis, ref.

after 753, Geof. 2, p. 240, n. 6: ref. after Resel, Poda, ins. t. i. f. 10.

EH. horaria, ref. after 754, [Geof.] 2, p. 240, n. 8 E. mutica; Note,

E. cauda biseta, alis albis hyalinis ‘striatis, thorace fusco, abdomine

albo; ref. Geof. 2, p.240 [n.7]. H.vespertina, Note; cauda triseta; ref.

after Gil. 21, Geof. 2, p. 239, n. 4.

1760 (Kr.). OC. C. Kramer, Dissertatio inauguralis, sistens specimen

Bogie Danice,...preside B. J. de Buckwald, M.D., p. 26. [A mere

ist. ]

1761 (Lin. F. 8. ii.). K. Linné, Fauna Suecica, ed. ii. pp. 376-8, Nos.

1472-80. LE. fuscata, diptera, nigra, striata. [The Author’s copy has

no MS. notes. ]

1761 (Sulz. Ken.). J. H. Sulzer, Die Kenntzeichen der Insekten, p. 43,

pl. xvii. 103.

1761 (Pod. Mus. Gr.). N. Poda, Insecta Musei Grecensis, pp. 97-8, pl.

1.10. HE. ignita, maculata, speciosa.

*1763 (Pontop. Atl.). E. Pontoppidan, Den Danske Atlas, pl. i.

1763 (Scop. E. Carn.). G. A. Scopoli, Entomologia Carniolica, pp.

253-4, Nos. 683-7, pl. xxxviii. 683. HE. gemmata, albipes, parvula.

1764 (Geof.). E. L. Geoffroy, Histoire Abrégée des Insectes qui se

trouvent aux environs de Paris, ii. 234-41, Nos. 1-8, pl. xiii. 4.

1764 (Mil. F. Fr.). O. F. Miller, Fauna Insectorum Friedrichsdalina,

p- 68, Nos. 554-7. EH. danica.

1765 (Pontop. Nat.). E. Pontoppidan, Die Naturhistorie in Danne-

mark, p. 223, Nos. 1-3, pl. xvii. [A wretched figure. ]

1766 (Schef. Elem.). J. C. Schiffer, Elementa Entomologica, pl. Ixii.

*1766-9 (Hout.). M. Houttuyn, Natuurkundige Beschrijving der In-

sekten (Hag.).

1767 (Lin. S. N. xii.). K. Linné, Systema Nature, ed. xii., part ii.

pp. 906-7, Nos. 1-11. #. lutea, marginata.

[Linné’s own (not interleaved) copy of 8. N. xii. contains the fol-

lowing MS. references. On p. 906.—E. vulgata, after Carn. 683, f. 683,

De Geer 2, t. 16, f. 1-9, 1-13; after Sulz. .... f. 103, Schef. Ic. 9, f:

5. E. vespertina, after Gil. 21, Rees. ins. aqu. t. 17, f. 14. HE. bioculata,

after Suec. 1473, Schef. ic. 175, f. 1, 2. On p. 907—E. nigra, after Suec.

1478, Schef. ic. 154, f. 1,2. EH. diptera, after Suec. 1477, De Geer, 2,

TLS, f.:5.)

*1769-72, J. Berkenhout, Outlines of the Natural History of Gt.

Britain and Ireland. [The Entomology is reproduced in ed. ii., 1789.]

1771 (De G. Mem.). K. de Geer, Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire des

Insectes, t. ii. part 2, pp. 621-56, Nos. 1-5, pls. xvi-xviii. (PI. xvii. fig.

13, is not that of a gill of a true Leptophlebia.]

6 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

*(1773], J. Hill, A decade of curious insects, pls. vii, viii. [E. culici-

formis, Hill, is a Perla; E. rupestris, Hill, is a Trichopteron.| (Hag-)

*1774 (Schef. Abh.). J. C. Schiffer, Abhandlungen von Insecten, iii.

30. (Pict.).

1775 (Georg. Bem.). J. G. Georgi, Bemerkungen auf einer Reise im

Riissischen Reiche, i. 190. [A mere list.]

1775 (Fab. 8. E.). J. C. Fabricius, Systema Entomologie, pp. 303-304,

Nos. 1-11. Ordo Synistata. H. venosa.

1776 (Schef. Ic.). J. C. Schiffer, Icones Insectorum circa Ratisbonam

indigenorum. Vol. i. pl. ix. 5, 6; xlii.7. Vol. ii. pl. cliv. 1, 2; clvi. 2,

8; clxxy. 1-3. Vol. iii. pl. cciv. 3; ccxxix, 2, 3; cexxxix. 4, 5. [For

Panzer’s nomenclature, see Pz. 1804.]

1776 (Mil. Pr.). O. F. Miller, Zoologie Danice Prodromus, pp. 142-

3, Nos. 1640-51. EH. plumosa, sulphurea, diaphana, luteola, russula, an-

nulata, berolinensis.

1776 (Sulz. Gesch.). J. H. Sulzer, Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten,

pp. 169-71, pl. xxiv. 6,7. EH. helvola.

1776 (Schr. Beyt.). F. v. P. Schrank, Beytrage zur Naturgeschichte,

p- 82. H. flava.

1777 (Fab. Gen.). J. C. Fabricius, Genera Insectorum, p. 244. HE.

halterata.

1781 (Barb.). J.Barbut, Les Genres des Insectes de Linné, pp. 209-13,

pled. de

1781 (Schr. En.). F. v. P. Schrank, Enumeratio insectorum Austriz

indigenorum, pp. 302-5, Nos. 602-6.

1782 (Fab. Sp.). J.C. Fabricius, Species Insectorum, i. pp. 383-5, Nos.

1782 (Har. Exp.). M. Harris, An Exposition of English Insects, pl.

vi. 1-3.

1783 (Retz.). A. J. Retzius, Caroli De Geer Genera et Species Insecto-

rum, pp. 56-7, Nos. 180-4. HE. communis, albipennis, cincta, fusco-grisea.

1785 (Thunb.). K. P. Thunberg, Donationes Thunbergiane ; in Mus.

Nat. Acad. Upsaliensis, p. 81. [A mere list.]

1785 (Foure. E. Par.). A. F. Fourcroy, Entomologia Parisiensis, ii.

350-2, Nos. 1-8. H. reticulata, viridescens.

1787 (Fab. Mant.). J. C. Fabricius, Mantissa Insectorum, i. 243-4,

Nos. 1-12.

1789 (Berk. Outl.).. J. Berkenhout, Outlines of the Natural History of

Gt. Britain and Ireland, ed. ii., i. 150, Nos. 1-5.

1789 (Raz.). G. de Razoumousky, Histoire Naturelle du Jorat, p. 210.

1789 (Vill.). ©. J. de Villers, Caroli Linnwi Entomologia, iii. 16-22,

Nos. 1-20, pl. vii. 8. EH. nervosa.

1789 (Reem. Gen.). J. J. Romer, Genera Insectorum Linnei et Fabricii

iconibus illustrata, pl. xxiv. 6, 7. Explic. p. 23. [Figures reproduced

from Sulz. 1776.]

1789 (Zsch.). J.J. Zschach, Museum Leskeanum, i. 150, Nos. 18-20,

[Names were assigned by Gmélin in 1790.]

1790 (Ros. F. Etr.). P. Rossi, Fauna Etrusea, ii. 7-9, Nos. 672-7.

*1790, J. G. Georgi, Versuch einer Beschreibung der Residenzstadt St.

Petersburg. (Hag.)

on the Ephemeride. 7

1790 (Gmél.). J. F. Gmélin, Linnei Systema Nature, ed. xiii., t. i.

part v. pp. 2628-30, Nos. 1-18. E. notata, testacea, ferruginea, stigma,

imanis.

1791 (Ol. Enc. Méth.). G. A. Olivier, Article “Ephemera,” in Ency-

clopédie Méthodique, vi. 404-22, E. longicauda, virgo.

1791 (Fisch. Vers.). J.B. Fischer, Versuch einer Naturgeschichte von

Livland, pp. 337-8, Nos. 564-6.

1793 (Fab. E.8.). J. C. Fabricius, Entomologia Systematica emendata

et aucta, t. iii. part i. pp. 68-71, Nos. 1-16. EH. marocana, brevicauda.

*1794, U. J. Seetzen, Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Ephemera lutea,

L.; in Meyer’s Magaz. f. d. Thiergeschichte, i. 41-63 (Hag.).

1795 (Don. B.I.)._ E. Donovan, Natural History of British Insects, iv.

53, pl. exxviii.

*1796 (Licht.). Lichtenstein, Cat. Mus. Holthuisen, iii. 1938, No. 52.

EB. noveboracana. (Hag.)

1796 (Lat. Préc.). P. A. Latreille, Précis des Caractéres Genériques

des Insectes, p. 96.

1798 (Cuv. Tab. Elem.). G.L. C. D. Cuvier, Tableau Elem. de I’Hist.

Nat. des Animaux, livr. vii. pp. 483-5. Agnathes.

1798 (Schr. F. B.). F. vy. P. Schrank, Fauna Boica, pp. 196-9, Nos.

1937-49. P. erythrophthalma, fuscula, familiaris.

oe es (Ced.). J. Cederhjelm, Faunx Ingrice Prodromus, pp. 133-5, Nos.

1800-2, J. G. Georgi, Geogr. physik. und naturhist. Beschr. des Rus-

sichen Reichs. *1800, Thl. iii. vi. 1802, p. 324. E. fuliginosa.

1801 (Web.). F. Weber, Observationes Entomologice, pp. 99-100.

EB. atrostoma.

1802 (Will.). Dr. Williamson, On the Ephoron leukon, usually called

the White Fly of Passaik River; in Trans. Amer. Soc. Philad. v. 71-3.

1802 (Illig.). J. K. W. Illiger, Magazin fiir Insectenkunde, i. 187-8,

No. 17. E. flos-aque.

1802 (Walck.). C. A. Walckenaer, Faune Parisienne, ii. 7-10, Nos.

1-11.

*1802. Elements of the Natural History of the Animal Kingdom; ed.

anonym. [See 1817, Stewart.]

1804 (Pz. Explic. Schef. Ic.). G.W. F. Panzer, in the explanation of

Schiiffer’s Icones. (see 1776). E. hyalina, Semblis marginata.

1805 (Pz. F. Germ.). G. W. F. Panzer, Faune Insectorum Germanics

Initia, Heft xciv, Nos. 16, 17.

1805 (Lat. H. N.). P. A. Latreille, Hist. Nat. des Crustacés et des In-

sectes, xiii. 93-100, Nos. 1-19. EH. Swammerdiana. Subulicornes.

[In M. de Selys-Longchamps’ collection is Latreille’s type of E. Swam-

merdiana, Pal. longicauda, 1 g subim.}

aed (Dum. Z. Anal.). A.M. C. Duméril, Zoologie Analytique, pp.

1806, G. Shaw, General Zoology, vol. vi. part ii. pp. 249-53, pl. 81-2.

E. Swammerdamiana.

ae (Lat. Gen.). P. A. Latreille, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum,

iii. 184.

1810 (Lat. Con. Gen.). P. A. Latreille, Considerations Générales sur

l’Ordre Naturel des Insectes, &c., p. 268 & p. 434.

8 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

1815, W. E. Leach, Article “‘ Entomology” in Brewster’s Edinburgh

Encyclopedia, ix. 187. Tribe 2, EpHemertprs. Fam. 1, Banripa. Gen,

488, Baetis; B.bioculatus. Gen. 489, Cloeon; C.pallida, Leach, MSS. _#.

diptera, Lin. Fam. 2, Epnemertpa. E.vulgata, Lin. [The article being

contributed anonymously, Leach quoted his own MSS.}

1817 (Cuv. R. A.i.). G.L. ©. D. Cuvier, Le Régne Animal, ed. i., t. iii.

pp. 426-30.

1817 (Lamarck, i). J.B. P. A. de M. Lamarck, Histoire Naturelle des

Animaux sans Vertébres, iy. 218-22.

1817 (Sav.). J.C. L. de Savigny, Description de Egypte. Histoire

Naturelle, Planches, t. ii. Névroptéres, pl. ii. 4-8. [In t. i. 194, Explic.

des Pls., he merely states that the figures belong to the Gen. Ephemera. |

1817 (Stew. Elem.). Stewart, Elements of the Natural History of the

Animal Kingdom, ed. ii., vol. ii. pp. 224-6, Nos. 1-9.

*1818, F. v. P. Gruithuisen, in Salz. Medic. Zeit. No. 92. Ephem.

larva. (Hag.)

1819 (Sam. E. Com.). G. Samouelle, The Entomologist’s useful Com-

pendium, pp. 259-60, pl. vii. 2. Alsop.65. [An incorporation of Leach’s

MS. with modifications. Fam. Hphemeride is put for Tribe Ephemerides,

Leach; and Leach’s named Families are ranked as nameless Stirpes.]

1821, W. Wood, Illustrations of the Linnzwan Genera of Insects, ii.

21-3, pl. xlvii.

1823 (Dum. Con. Gen.). A. M. C. Duméril, Considerations Générales

sur la Classe des Insectes, p. 204, pl. xxviii. 4, 5.

1823 (Say, W. Q. R.). T. Say, Descriptions of Neuroptera collected

by the Expedition under Major 8S. H. Long; in * The Western Quarterly

Reporter, vol. ii. p. 162-3; repr. by Le Conte 1859, vol. i. 171-2. Buaetis

femorata, Cloeon posticata, Ephemera cupida.

1824 (Say, Long’s 2d Exp.). T. Say, Narrative of an expedition to the

source of St. Peter’s River, under Major 8. H. Long; * W. Q. R. vol. ii.

303-5 ; ed. Le Conte 1859, vol. i. 203-4. Baetis bilineata, alternata, alba.

1824, J. Fleming, Article ““Insecta,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, Sup-

plem. yol. y. 53. Hphemerade.

1825 (Lat. Fam.). P. A. Latreille, Familles Naturelles du Régne Ani-

mal, p. 434.

1825 (Dum. Elem.). A. M. C. Duméril, Hlemens des Sciences Natu-

relles, ii. 142, pl. v. 16-7.

1827, C. G. Carus, Entdeckung eines einf. Blutkreisl. &c., *p. 16, pl.

lii. Isis, iv. 317, pl. iv. 3. [Circulation in an Ephem. nymph.]

1828, O. G. Costa, Fauna di Aspromonte, pl. i. 2.

1829 (Cuv. R. A. ii.). G.L.C. D. Cuvier, Le Régne Animal, ed. ii. t. v.

pp. 241-4.

1829 (Gor. & Prit.). Goring and Pritchard, Natural History Objects

for the Microscope, *ed. i; ed. iii. pp. 61-9, pl. ii. 4-6.

1829, J. F. Stephens, The Nomenclature of British Insects (ed. i. of the

Catalogue,) ii. 305-7, Nos. 3369-3409. [A mere list. ]

1829, J. Curtis, A Guide to the Arrangement of British Insects, columns

132-3. [A mere list.]

1829-43 (Guér. Ic.). F. E. Guérin-Méneville, Iconographie du Régne

Animal, vol. ii. part i. pl. lx. 7-9, vol. i. 384. EH. limbata.

[In M. de Selys-Longchamps’ collections are Serville’s types of H. tit-

BATA, Hexagenia, 1 g im.; EH. pirererRa, Cloeon, 1 g im.]

on the Ephemeride. 9

1831, C. J. Carus, Fernere Untersuchungen tiber den Blutlauf in Ker-

fen; in Act. Acad. Leopold. Carol. Akad. t. xv. Abth. ii. p. 11. [A mere

statement that circulation is observable in the wings of E. lutea and man-

ginata. |

1832, R. Wagner, Beobachtungen iiber den Kreislanf des Blutes und

den Bau des Riickengefiisses bei den Insecten; in Isis, ix. 322, pl. ii. 1.

1832 (Grif. A. K.). G. R. Gray, The Class “ Insecta,” in Griffith’s

eas Kingdom, ii. 296 and 313-20, pl. xciv.7,9. [Figures from Guér.

c.]

1833 (Bowerb.). J. 8. Bowerbank, Observations on the circulation of

blood in Insects; in Ent. Mag. i. 239-44, pl. ii. 1-6.

1834, A. H. Davis, Metamorph. of Ephemera; in Ent. Mag. ii. 322-3.

1834 (Sam. Ent. Cab.). G. Samouelle, Entomological Cabinet, ii. No.

53, pl. xxiv. 1.

1834 (Curt. Phil. Mag.). J. Curtis, Descriptions of some nondescript

British species of May-flies of Anglers; in Lond. and Edinb. Philos. Mag.

ser. 3, pp. 120-2. EH. fusca. B. dispar, costalis, elegans, mellea, straminea,

flavescens, lateralis, semicolorata, carnea, vernus, autwmnalis. C. mar-

moratum, obscurwm, unicolore, dimidiatum. Brachycercus Harrisella,

chironomiformis, minima. [The numbers prefixed to the names in the

text refer to the second ed. of the Guide.]

1834 (Curt. B. E.). J. Curtis, British Entomology, vol. xi. No. & pl.

ececlxxxiy.

1835, E. Newman, The Grammar of Entomology, pp. 248 and 255.

Ephemerites and Ephemerina.

1835 (Lamarck, ii.). J.B. P. A. de M. Lamarck, Hist. Nat. des Anim.

sans Vertebres, ed. ii., t. iv. 422-5. HE. Swammerdania.

1835-6, Allen Thompson, Article “Circulation,” in Tod’s Cyclopedia

of Anatomy and Physiology, i. 651-2.

1835 (Ste. Ill.). J. F. Stephens, Illustrations of British Entomology,

Mandib. vi. 53-70, pl. xxix. EH. cognata, talcosa, submarginata, dispar,

apicalis, rufescens, rosea, helvipes, dubia, minor. Cenis macrwra, dimi-

diata, pennata, interrupta. Ba. longicauda, subfusca, obscwra, cingulata.

Cl. ochraceum, hyalinatum, albipenne, cognatum, virgo.

[The specimens in Stephens’ collection are named in accordance with

his Catalogue, not with the Illustrations. The ticketted specimens, how-

ever, partake in some measure of the nature of type specimens. Many

of them are no doubt the originals of the descriptions in the Illustrations ;

for Stephens had not access to many collections of Ephemeride; his

descriptions are mostly taken from dried examples; and many of these

specimens are of an older date than 1835. Those of them which conform

to the descriptions in the Illustrations similarly named, may, therefore,

be presumed to be virtually authentic.

The collection comprises:—E. vunteata, 5 g im.; coanata, 3 g,5 2

im.; stigMA,2 ¢ im.; Tancosa l 2 im.; LurEa, 1 Heptagenia elegans, S

im.; MARGINATA, 2 H. semicolorata, g im.; supMARGINATA, 1 L. helvipes, 2

im., &1 B. phwops, g im.; pDispar, 6, 1im., 1 subim.; nicRicans, 4 g

im.; (pILUTA, absent); apicaLis, 2 Eph.ignita, g im., and 1 B. pheops,

é im.; rurescens, 2 6,8 Y im.; puBis, 2 f im.; HELVIPES, 1 ¢ im.;

RosEA, 1 ¢,1 2 im.; (vESPERTINA, absent). (C#NIS MACRURA, wanting);

C. pennata, | 9; BREvVIcAUDA, 1 92; cHIRONOMIFOoRMIS, 1 macrura, § ;

pimipmata, 2 g¢,1 9. Barris caupara,l ¢,2 9 im.; veNnosa, 1 6,22

im.; suprusca,1 9 im.; FLAvEScENS, ¢ 1subim., 2 lim.; Basauis, 2 g

im.; stRIATA, B. phwops, 2 1 im., 1 subim.; pH®opa (=phwops) 1

subim.; opscura, 1 9 im.; HoRARIA, 1 Cloeon, sp. dub., 9 subim. and

10 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Eph. ignita,1 8,12 im.; cunicrrormis, 4 B. pheops, g im. and 1

Cloeon, sp. dub., 2 subim.; ruscara, 1 buceratus, g im., 1C. luteolum, o

im., binoculatus, § lim., 1 subim.,2 pheops, f im.; B1iocuLatus, 1 g im.,

7 luteolum, 8 im.; crneuLATA,2 ¢ im. CLoronprPrERA, 9 5im., 3subim. ;

ocHRAcHA, 2 C. luteolum, @ im., 1 B. binoculatus, 9 subim.; opscuRA,

1 B. binoculatus, 2 damaged; HyALInaTA, 3 C. luteolum, 2 im.; DORSALIS,

3 C. luteolum, g im.; coanara, 1 ¢ im.; consopnrinus, ¢ 4 im., 1 subim. ;

virGo, 1 dipterum, g im., 1 russuluwm, 9 im., damaged. There are also—

E. minor, 1 2 im.; B. lateralis, 1 g im.; B. annulata, 1 2 im.; B.par-

vula, 1 g im.; and B.verna, 1 2 im.

*1836, F. J. Ehrenberger, Dissertatio inauguralis Zoologica de Neu-

ropterorum anatomia et physiologia. (Hag.)

1836 (Westw. Part. Cyc.). J. O. Westwood, in Partington’s British

Cyclopedia, ii. 439. Macrocercus.

1836 (Ronaldsi.). A. Ronalds, The Fly-fisher’s Entomology, ed. i.

[Pls. ix, xiii. & xiv. alone in this edition are worth citing. The figures in

the later editions are mostly inferior to those in ed. i.]

[The types comprise, —ii. Baetis pheops, 2 subim.; iii. Heptagenia,

longicauda, 2 im.; viii. H. venosa, 2 im.; xv. H. longicauda, subim. ;

xvi. Baetis, sp. dub., subim.; xvii. Baetis, sp. dub.; xix. H. elegans, 9

1 im., 1 subim.; xxii. H. insignis, $ subim.; xxiii. Baetis, sp. dub.,

subim.; xxv.afragment; xxviii. H.danica, 9 subim.; xxix. H. danica, 2

im.; xxxi. H. vulgata, g im.; xxxii. & xxxiii. absent ; xxxviii. & xlii. each

H. longicauda, subim.; xliii. Cl. russulum, 2 subim. The Roman nu-

merals are index numbers to the work. ]

1837, G. Dahlbom, Kort Underiittelser om skandinayiska Insekters,

pp. 227-8, No. 151. é

1838 (Curt. B. H.). J. Curtis, British Entomology, vol. xy., No. & pl.

dccviii.

1838, J. T. Lacordaire, Introduction 4 ’Entomologie, ii. 77. [Circula-

tion described. ]

1888 (Perch. Gen.). E.Guérin & A. R. Percheron, Genera des Insectes,

&e., livr. vi. pl. iv. LE. albicans.

1839 (Burm. Handb.). H.C. C. Burmeister, Handbuch der Entomo-

logie, Bd. ii. Abth. ii. pp. 796-804 and 1015. Ozxycypha lactea, luctuosa,

discolor. Cloe halterata, pumila. (Baetis) fusca, marginalis, aurantiaca,

reticulata, luridipennis. Palingenia horaria, dorsalis.

1839, G. Newport, Article “ Insecta,” in Tod’s Cyclopedia of Anatomy

and Physiology, ii. 864, fig. 345; and (circulation) p. 979.

1839, T. Say, Descriptions of New N. American Neuropterous Insects ;

in Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, viii. 41-4; ed. Le Conte, 1859, ii.

411-13. B. interpunctata, arida, verticis, obesa. E. hilaris.

1840 (Zet.). J. W. Zetterstedt, Insecta Lapponica, columns 1044.6,

Nos. 1-9. HE. hyalinata, vitrea.

1840 (Westw. Intr.). J. O. Westwood, Introduction to the modern elas-

sification of Insects; vol. ii. Addenda, p. viii. Text, pp. 24-84, fig. Ixi. 1-20.

Generic Synopsis, p. 47, Addenda to the Generic Synopsis, 158. Neuropt.

Biomorphotica. Leptophlebia, Brachyphlebia.

(The types in Prof. Westwood’s Cabinet, are :—LrpropHiesta, 1 margi-

nata, 2 im., andl Eph.ignita, g im.; BracHypHLEstA, 2 Ba. binoculatus,

3 im.; Baeris{, Heptag. elegans.]

1840, Triepke, Hinige Bemerkungen tiber Ephemera flosaque, Iliger ;

in Stet. Ent. Zeit. i, 54-8.

1840, F. 8. Voigt, Lehrbuch der Zoologie, v. 309-11,

on the Ephemeride. 11

1840, G. A. W. Herrich-Schiiffer, Fauna Ratisbonensis, von K. L.

Koch, Dr. A. Scheffer, und F. Forster, p. 346, Nos. 161-88. [A list.]

1840 (Blanch. N.H.). E. Blanchard, Hist. Nat. des Insectes, t. i. p. xxiv.

Introd. Anatomie et Physiologie (circulation by Brullé) ; t. iii. 52-5, Nos.

1-11, pl. iii. 1.

1841 (Duf. Rech.). Léon Dufour, Récherches anatom. et physiolog.

sur les Orthoptéres, les Hymenoptéres, et les Névroptéres, part iii., in

Mém. par divers savans, Instit. de France, t. viii. pp. 560-4, 578-82 ;

pl. xi. 167-8, anatomy. P. 580, footnote, E. flavipennis, nigrimana.

1841 (Burm.). H.C. C. Burmeister, Article “ Ephemera,” in Ersch &

Gruber’s Encyclopiadie der Wissenschaften. Theil xxxy. 312-16.

1842 (Ramb. Névr.). J. P. Rambur, Hist. Nat. des Ins. Névroptéres,

pp. 293-9, pl. viii. 2. E. hispanica, angustipennis, flavicans, rufa, chloro-

tica, obscura, subinfuscata, brunnea, affinis.

[The types sent to me by M. le Baron E. de Selys-Longchamps were :—

E. nurea, 1 HE. glawcops, 2 im.; E. uispanica, 1 E. danica, g im.; E.

LoNGicaupA, 1 Palingenia longicauda, g subim.; E. sANGUSTIPENNIS,

1 Heptagenia, 2 subim.; E. Fuavicans, 1 Potamanthus luteus, 2 im.;

E. rura, 1 Heptagenia (venosa ?), 2 im.; E. cHnororica, | Pot. luteus, g

subim.; Chor opscura, 4 Cloeon, 9 subim.; C. suBrnruscaATA, 1 Cloeon,

2 subim.; C. prunnEA, 1 Heptagenia lateralis, g subim.; C. arrinis,

1 Cloeon dipterum, $ im.; C. pumia, 1 Cloeon russulum, g im.; C. HAL-

TERATA, 1 Cloeon russulum, 2 im.

There were also CLoE pierera, 1 Cloeon dipterwm, 9 im. ; E. maprti-

TENSIS (Ramb. MS.), 1 Heptag. angustipennis, 9 im.; E. Lonaicaupa,t

1 Pot. luteus, § im.; and a CENTROPTILUM LUTEOLUM, ¢ im.; from

Rambur’s collection, not types. ]}

1843, J. Atkinson, Notes on Ephemera, in The Zoologist, i. 272-5.

1843-5 (Pict. Eph.). F. J. Pictet, Hist. Nat. des Ins. Névroptéres.

Famille des Ephémérines. £. glaucops, guttulata. Pal. puella, indica,

Savignyi. Ba. fluminum, cyanops, montana, purpurascens, semitincta,

cerea, flaveola, guttata, australasica. Potamanthus Ferreri, Geerii, casta-

neus, brunneus, gibbus, eneus, (and erythrocephalus, a misprint for ery-

throphthalmus). (Cloe) Rhodani, translucida, alpina, melanonyx, litura,

fasciata, undata. (Cenis) grisea, argentata, varicauda, oophora. Oligo-

newia anomala.

[As the authentic and spurious specimens are not distinguished in M.

Pictet’s collection, an accurate enumeration of them could not be made.

The collection contained:—E. vuneata, HE. danica; Danica, vulgata ;

GLAUCOPS. Ba. FLUMINUM, subim.; VENOSA,im.; CYANOPS; PURPURASCENS,

venosa, ¢ im.; SEMICOLORATA, ¢ and § im.; SEMITINCTA, semicolorata,

g and 9 im. Por. (marginatus, L.) unnamed; Grxrt, L. helvipes, g

im. subim.; cinctus, L. cincta, and 1 fusca; ERYTHROPHTHALMUS, EL. ig-

nita. CiLoE Ruopant, B. Rhodani, with 2 C. luteolwm, subim., and 1 C.

russulum, g im.; PUMILA; TRANSLUCIDA, C. luteolwum; MELANONYX, C. rus-

sulum, g im., var. 1; DIPTERA; CH#NIS LACTEA; (PoLYMITARCYS SAVIGNII,

unnamed). |

1845 (Schn.). W. G. Schneider, Verzeichniss der von Herrn Zeller im

Jahre 1844 in Sicilien und Italien gesammelten Neuropteren, &c.; in Stet.

Ent. Zeit. vi. 340, Nos. 13-14. (Cloe) fusca.

1846 (Fons.). E.L.J.H. Boyer de Fonscolombe, Notes sur huit espéces

nouvelles d’Hymenoptéres et de Névroptéres trouvées aux environs d’ Aix ;

in Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., ser. 2, t. iv. 49-51. E. caliciformis (a misprint).

1846 (?), (Lab. & Imh.). J.D. Labram and L. Imhoff, Insecten der

Schweiz, Bd. iv. (one plate, not numbered).

12 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

1847, M. C. Verloren, Sur la circulation dans les Insectes; in Mém.

Couron. Acad. Roy. Belg. t. xix. 49, pl. i.

1847, Ant. & Giov. Bap. Villa, Comparsa periodica delle Efimere nella

Brianza ; in Economista, Novemb. 1847, p. 1-6 [illustrated].

1847 (at. Nouv. Dict.). P. A. Latreille, Nouv. Dict. d’hist. Nat., t. x.

348-9, pl. xix. 5,

1848 (Corn.). C. Cornelius, Beitrige zur niheren Kenntniss der Palin-

genia longicauda, Ol.; 38 pp., 4 pl.

1848 (Cuy. R. A., Crochard ed.). EH. Blanchard, in Cuvier’s Reg. Anim.

by Crochard, t. xiii. 88-92, t. xiv. pl. cii. 1-1c.

1848 ree L. Calori, en ee Oe vavibare della Cloe Hees

1849 (Hag. Tebet): ETE i Eagsh, Uebersicht ae neueren Ties

betreffend die Neuropteren Linné’s; in Stet. Ent. Zeit. x. 354-71. [In

the critique of Pict. Ephem. (1843-5), Dr. Hagen indicated in this paper

a genus Potamantius, restricted (type P. gibbus, Pict.) ; but he did not

adopt the genus in his later writings. Mr. Walsh afterwards described

this genus, with additional species, under the name Ephemerella. I have

passed by Dr. Hagen’s usage, arid have adopted the later name for the

genus. |

*1850, L. H. Fischer, Beitraige zur Insecten-Fauna um Freiburg im

Breisgau; in Jahresb. des Mannheim. Ver. fiir Naturk. pp. 60-70 (Hag.).

1851 (Sieb. Beitr. xii.). C. T. EH. von Siebold, Beitrage zur Fauna der

wirbellosen Thiere Preussens (12th Beitr.); in *Neu. Preuss. Provinzial

Blatt. Bd. xi. 8, Nos. 1-18. [A mere list.]

1851 (Blanch. Chili). E. Blanchard, in C. Gay’s Historia fisica y politica

de Chille, vi. 103-7; Atl. Zool. Ent. Névrop. lam. ii. 2-8. (Cloe) vitripennis.

*1852 (Imh. Bericht). L. Imhoff, Oligoneuria rhenana; in Bericht

tiber Verhandl. d. naturf. Gesellsch. in Basel, x. 177-80. O. rhenana.

*1853, J. A. Herklots, Het Haft, de langgestaarte Hendagsvlieg; in

Jahrb. k. Zool. Genootsch. Amst. pp. 117-123.

*1853, Forster, Notiz tiber die Hintagsfliege; in Corresp. Bl. zool.

mineral. Ver. Regensburg, vii. 91-3. ~

1853 (Kirsch. Ent. Misc.). C. L. Kirschbaum, Entom. Miscellen ; in

Jahrb. Vereins f. Naturk. Nassau, Heft. ix. pp. 44-5.

1853 (Walk. Cat.). F. Walker, List of Neuropterous Insects in the

British Museum. Part iil. pp. 535-85. H. simulans, Colombic, decora, Hebes,

australis. Pal. lata, viridescens, occultata, natata, hwmeralis, bicolor,

pallipes, concinna, nebulosa, albifilum, latipennis, vitrea. Ba. angulata,

remota, vicaria, basalis, tessellata, albivitta, annulata, Taprobanes, deter-

minata, invaria, fusca, debilis, canadensis, fuscata, scita, torrida, ignota.

Cen. diminuta, sinensis, perpusilla.

[The general collection of the British Museum contained in 1853 :—E.

VuLGATA, ¢ 1 subim.,2im., 1 danica, 9 im.; panica,2 9 im. ; SIMU-

LANS, 1 decora, g subim. ; Conomsrm, ub Toptasmetia, 9 subim.; ; DECORA,

1 ¢ im.; (HEBEs, wanting) ; AUSTRALIS, subim. 1 ¢,3 9. Por. LUTEUS,

1 Leptophlebia marginata, g subim.; Marcinatus, 1 g im.; crNncTUS, 1

Leptophlebia fusca, § im.; ERYTHROPHTHALMUS, Ephemerella ignita, 2 9

im.; RosEus, H. ignita, 1 2 im.; cosTanis, im. 1 ¢,2 9. Pau. viRGo,

1 g subim.; aupicans, 1 9 im.; Lata, 3 g¢ subim.; viripDEScENS, 1 H.

bilineata, 9 subim.; occuLTaTa, bilineata, 3 Q subim.; Navava, 2 E.

decora, 2° subim.; HuMpRALIS, 1 9 subim.; BICOLOR, 1 Siphlurus,

2 subim.; PALLIPES, Leptophlebia cupida, i 6 subim., 2 2 im. ;

concinna, L. cupida, 1 g im.; NEBULOsA, 2 Leptophlebia, g im.;

on the Ephemeride. 13

ALBIFILUM, Campsurus albifilum, 1 g im. & A. curtus, 1 g im.; LATIPEN-

nis, 1 (Q subim., 2 im., ¢ im.), & 1 sp. dub. ¢ subim.; viTREa,

1 Heptagenia, 2 subim. Ba. riuminum, H. venosa,2 9 subim.; VENOSA,

1H. longicauda, g Y im.; montana, 2 H. insignis, § im.; LATERALIS,

1 9 im.; semrconoraTa, 1 g im.; cEREA, 1 H. flavipennis, f 2 im.;

FLAvVEOLA, H. 1 9 im. subim., sp. dub. 1 2 subim.; avsrranasicA, 2

Leptophlebia, § im.; ELEGANS, 1 H. 9 subim.; suBrusoa, 1 Leptophlebia,

marginata, g im.; LURIDIPENNIS, 1 H. ¢ im.; aneunata, 1 Hexagenia

bilineata, g im.; (REMoTA, wanting); vicaria, 1 H. g im.; Basauis, 1 H.

g im.; ressenuara, 1 A. vicaria, 9 subim.; auprvirra, Hexagenia, go 1

subim. 2 im.; annunata, 1 Siphlurus, ¢ im.; Tapropanes, 1 Lepto-

phlebia, § im.; pereRMINATA, 1 H. ¢ im. (now a fragment merely) ; IN-

varia, 3 Ephemerella, g im.; Fusca, (a.b.) H. g 2 im., (c), Leptophlebia

cupida,1 g im.; pestis, 1 L. cwpida, $ im.; canapensis, 2 H. gf im.;

FuscaTa, 1 Ephemerella invaria, g im. subim.; scrra, 2 Leptophlebia g

im.; rorrmpA, 1 H. 2 im.; 1enora, 1 Isonychia, g im.; No. 45, 1 Lep-

tophlebia cupida, 2 im. Cu. BIocuLaTA, (e,f),2 ¢ im., (g.) sp. nondescript.

1 $ im.; pumrma, 1 B. binoculatus, § im.; TRANSLUCIDA, 2 B. binoculatus,

9 im.; prpTERA, (a-c) 2 im.; cunicrrorMIs, 1 Leptophlebia helvipes, ?

im.; srriatTa, 2 Ephemerella ignita, 9 subim.; veRNA, 1 B. pheops, $

im.; cINGuULATA, 1 Ephemerella ignita, g im; uyatinata, 1 binoculatus &

1 luteolum, 9 im.; CaN. BREVIcAUDA, 1 9 im.; piuruta, 1 g im.; sI-

NENSIS, 1 Cloeon russulum, g im.; PERPUSILLA, 1 ¢ im.]

1854 (Pict. Trait. de Pal.). F.J. Pictet, Traité de Paléontologie (ed.

2) ii. 871. Palingenia macrops, Baetis anomala, Potamanthus priscus.

*1854 (Letz.). K. Letzner, Ueber Palingenia virgo; in Arbeit. schles.

Gesellsch. p. 101.

1854 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Ueber die Neuropteren der Bernstein Fau-

na; in Verh. zool.-bot. Ver. Wien, iv. 221-32. [A mere list, containing

the new names :—Palingenia gigas, Baetis longipes. |

1854 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Auffaillig nérdliches Vorkommen dreier

grosser sudeuropiischer Insekten; in Stet. Ent. Zeit. xy. 316-19.

1855 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Die Ephemeren-Gattung Oligoneuria; in

Stet. Ent. Zeit. xvi. 267-70, tab. i. O. rhenana, var. pallida.

~ 1856 (Pict. & Hag.). F. J. Pictet and H. A. Hagen; in C. G. Berendt’s

Organische Reste im Bernstein, Bd. ii. 73-7, tab. vi. 1,2; vii. 5. Ba.

gigantea, grossa.

1856 (Ronalds, y.). A. Ronalds’ Fly-fishers’ Entomology, ed. v. [In

this edition, names were added to the original explanations of plates, and

No. 29 is an Ephemerid.]

1857 (Brau.), F. Brauer, Neuroptera Austriaca, pp. Xvi, xvii. 24-27.

1858-59 (Hag. Syn. Ceyl.). H. A. Hagen, Synopsis der Neuroptera

Ceylons ; in Verh. zool.-bot. Gesells. Wien, Part I, 1858, vol. viii. pp. 476-7,

Nos. 22-31. Pot. fasciatus, annulatus, femoralis. (Cloe) tristis, consueta,

solida, signata, marginalis. Part II, 1859, vol. ix. p. 206, Nos. 29-30,

[In the collection of M. de Selys-Longechamps are the types of :—P.

Fasciatus, Ephemera, 1 2 subim.; P. annuxatus, Leptophlebia, 1 g im.]

1859 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Ueber das Vorkommen von Palingenia

longicauda in Preussen; in Stet. Ent. Zeit. xx. 431.

1859 (Schi.). J.C. Schiddte; in Berlin. Ent. Zeit. iii. 148.

1859 (Say, Le Conte rep.). J. L. Le Conte, The complete Writings of

Thomas Say on the Entomology of N. America, i. 171-2 (Say, W. Q. R.);

i, 203-4 (Say, Long’s 2d. Exp.); ii. 411-13 (Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Se.

Philad. 1839).

14 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

1860 (Walk.). F. Walker, Characters of undescribed Neuroptera in the

collection of W. W. Saunders, Esq., F.R.S.; in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.

N. S. vol. v. pp. 198-9. EH. dislocans. Pot. exspectans. Pal. continua,

annulifera. (Cloeon) debilis.

[The types, now in the British Museum, are E. pisuocans, Leptophlebia,

1 g im.; P. exsprorans, Ephemera, 1 9 subim.; P. continua, Hexagenia

albwvitta, 1 2 im.; P. annunireRa, Heptagenia, 1 9 im.; C. DEBILIS,

Baetis, 1 9 im.]

1860 (Kolen.). F. A. Kolenati, Einige neue Insekten-Arten von Alt-

vater ; in Wien. Ent. Monatschrift, iv. 383. Ba. iridana.

1860 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Examen des Névroptéres (non Odonates)

recueillis en Sicile par E. Bellier de la Chavignerie ; in An. Soe. Ent. Fr.

3 ser., vill. 746. Ba. Bellieri.

[The type in M. de Selys-Longchamps’ collection is B. Benurer1, Hepta-

genia, 1 2 im.]

1861 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Synopsis of the Neuroptera of N. America,

with a list of the §. American species; in Smithsonian Miscellaneous

Collections, pp. 38-55. EH. pudica. Pal. Hecuba, decolorata. Ba. ignawa,

(Cloe) mollis, pygmea, vicina. Ce.amica. [Ba. tessellata and Cloe wnicolor

are paronyms. |

[The types in the collection of M. de Selys-Longchamps are :—P. HE-

cuBA, Huthyplocia, 1 9 im.; B. vicaria,Heptagenia lwridipennis, 1 g im. ;

C. motuis, Leptophlebia, 1 6 im.]

1861, F. Loew, Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Orthopteren; in Verh.

zool.-bot. Gesells. Wien, xi. 409-10.

1862, B. D. Walsh, List of the Pseudo-Neuroptera of Illinois contained

in the cabinet of the writer, &c.; in Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. pp.

367-81. Ba. sicca. Pot. odonatus. Pal. vittigera, flavescens, pulchella,

terminata. EH. flaveola. Ephemerella excrucians, consimilis. Betisca

(obesa, Say). (Cloe) ferruginea, fluctuans, dubia, mendac.

[The types sent by the late Mr. Walsh to me were :—i. PENTAG. VITTI-

GERA, 1 ¢ im.; ii. Hexac. prmpatTa, 1 ¢ im.; iii. HEPTAG FLAVESCENS,

1 g im.; iv.-vii. Barisca opesa, 4(gim., 2 im., g subim., ¢ pupal ,

shell) ; viii. ix. EpHEMERELLA ExcRucians, 2 EH. invaria, g im. The

Roman numerals denote those on the tickets affixed to the types in

the British Museum.}

1863 (Hag. & Walsh). Observations on certain N. American Neuroptera,

by H. A. Hagen; with notes and descriptions of new species of N.

American Pseudo-Neuroptera, by B. D. Walsh ; in Proce. Ent. Soc. Philad.

ii. 169-179 (Hag. Obs.) ; and ii. 188-207 (Walsh, Notes). Cenis nigra

(undescribed). Pentagenia; Hexagenia; Heptagenia. Pentag. quadri-

punctata. Heptag. simplex, cruentata, maculipennis. EH. myops.

1863 (Hag. Brit. Syn.). H. A. Hagen, Synopsis of the British Hphe-

meride; in Entomologist’s Annual, pp. 1-35.

1863, J. Lubbock, On the development of Chlocon [Ephemera] dimidia-

tum, Part 1; in Trans. Lin. Soc. Lond. xxiv. 61-78, pls. xvii-xviii.

1864, B. D. Walsh, On the pupa of the Ephemerinous genus Betisca ;

in Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. pp. 200-6.

1864, J. F. Stein, Beitrag zur Neuropteren-Fauna Griechenlands ; in

Berlin. Ent. Zeit. vii. 411. Pot. Krueperi.

1864 (Meyer). LL. R. Meyer-Diir, Zusammenstellung der auf meiner

Reise durch Tessin und Ober Engadine, &c.; in Mitth. Schw. Ent. Ges.

i. 219-21. Ba. Picteti.

on the Bphemeride. 15

1864 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, Névroptéres (non Odonates) de la Corse,

&e.; in An. Soc. Ent. Fr. ser. 4, vol. iv. pp. 38-9. Ba. fluminwm, var. ?

fallan, zebrata. Pot. modestus.

[In the collection of M. de Selys-Longchamps are Dr. Hagen’s types of

B. rtuminum, Hept. zebrata, 1 g im.; B. rauuax, 1 zebrata, g subim.; B.

ZEBRATA, 1 ¢ subim.,1 2 im.; B.vEnosa, 1 subim., 1 2 im.; P. mopzs-

tus, 1 Leptophlebia, g im., and 1 B. Rhodani, 2 subim.; C. puma, 1

B. 2 subim.; C. Ruovanr, 1B. g im.; C. prprera, 2 Cloeon, ¢ im.]

1865 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, The Neuroptera of Madeira; in The Ento-

mologist’s Monthly Magazine, i. 25-6. (Cloe) maderensis.

{In Mr. Wollaston’s collection (Brit. Mus.) are C. piprmra, 2 Cloeon, 2

im.; C. mapprensis, B. Rhodani, § 4im., 9 2 im., 1 subim.]

1865 (Ed. Pict.). A. E. Pictet, Synopsis des Névroptéres d’Espagne,

pp. 22-6, pl. iii. Ba. flavida, sylvicola.

{In M. Ed. Pictet’s collection were B. Fuavipa, Siphlurus, g im.; B.

SYLVICOLA, Heptagenia, g im., named; and Ephemerella ignita, g im.,

from San Ildefonso, unnamed.]

1865 (A. Miil.). A. Miller, Observations on the habits of Oligonewria

rhenana; in Ent. Mo. Mag. i. 262.

1865 (Etn.). A. EH. Eaton, Occurrence of the female imago of Cloeon

under submerged stones ; in Ent. Mo. Mag. ii. 14. (Baetis.)

1865, Lubbock (see 1863), Part. II, in Trans. Lin. Soe. xxy. 477-92, pl.

lyiii—lix.

1865, W. Houghton, Ephemera, the May Fly; in The Intellectual Ob-

server, vi. 147-54, pls. i, ii.

1866, Tuffen West, Description of the Skin cast by an Ephemeron

in its Pseudimago condition; in Trans. Microscop. Soc. Lond. xiy. 69-70,

pl. vii. 8-11.

1866 (A. Mul.). A. Miller, Further Notes on Oligoneuria rhenana ;

in Ent. Mo. Mag. ii. 182. °

1866, F. Loew, in Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, xvi. 947.

1866 (Htn.). A. E. Eaton, On some species of the Orthopterous genus

Cloeon, Leach, (as limited by M. Pictet); in Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser.

3, vol. xvili. pp. 145-8 (illustrated). Cloeopsis.

1867 (Etn.). A. E. Eaton, On some British Neuroptera; in Ann. &

Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, vol. xix. p. 401.

*1867, M. T. Ratzel; in Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool. xviii. 99. [On the egg

of an Ephemerid.}

1867 (Oul.). B. Oulianine, (in Russian), Neuroptera and Orthoptera of

the province of Moscow, pp. 25-9.

1868 (M’Lach.). R. M’Lachlan, On a new species belonging to the

Ephemerideous Genus Oligonewria; in Ent. Mo. Mag. iv. 177-8. 0. Tri-

meniana, [The typeis1 2 im., in Mr. M’Lachlan’s collection.]

*1868, H. Gernacher, Beitriige zur Kenntniss des Eies der Epheme-

riden; in Zeits. f. wiss. Zool. xix. 95.

1868 (Brau. Ver.). F. Brauer, Verzeichniss der bis jetzt bekannten

Neuropteren im Sinne Linné’s; in Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellsch. Wien,

XViil. 361, 363, 387-9.

1868 (Brau. Reise Novara). F. Brauer, Reise der Fregatte Novara,

Zool, Theil, Bd. ii. Abth. i. 104. [A list.]

16 Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

1868, B. D. Walsh, The Bug-hunter in Egypt (S. Illinois); in The

American Entomologist, i. 6, fig. i. b. ¢.

1868 (Hag.). H. A. Hagen, On Lachlania abnormis, 1 new Genus and

Species from Cuba, belonging to the Ephemerina; in Proc. Boston Soc.

Nat. Hist. pp. 372-4, fig.

1868 (Etn.). A. E. Eaton, in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1868, p. 142.

Ecdyonurus (misreading for Ecdywrus).

1868 (Etn.). A. EH. Eaton, An outline of a re-arrangement of the genera

of Ephemeride; in Ent. Mo. Mag. v. 82-91. Tricorythus, Campsurus,

Polymitarcys, Coloburus, Siphlurus (mis-spelt Siphlonurus).

1868 (EKtn.). A. E. Eaton, On some points in the anatomy of the

immature Canis macrura of Stephens; in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1868,

pp. 279-82.

1869 (Ausser. Neur. Tirol.). C. Ausserer, Neurotteri Tirolesi; in Annu-

ario della Soc. Natur. Modena, An. iy. 131-7.

1869 (Etn.). A. E. Eaton, On Centroptilum, a new genus of the Ephe-

- meride; in Ent. Mo. Mag. vi. 1382. Centroptilum (luteolum).

1870 (Etn.). A. E. Eaton, On some new British species of Epheme-

ride; in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1870, pp. 1-8. #. lineata. Cl. simile.

Centropt. pennulatum. Ba. scambus, atrebatinus, pheops, tenax, bucera-

tus, niger. Siphl. armatus, lacustris. Heptag. volitans, insignis.

1870 (Etn.). A. E. Eaton, A Catalogue of British Neuroptera. [The

Fam. Ephemeride]. Pp. 7-11. [A mere list.]

1871 (Htn.). A. H. Haton. In this present monograph I describe the

following new genera and species. (Campsur.) cuspidatus, quadriden-

tatus ; Asthenopus curtus; (Polymit.) Savignii; Huthyplocia; (Ephem.)

immaculata, serica; (Leptophl.) furcifera, inconspicua, dentata, strigata,

nodularis, awriculata, mollis; (Centropt.) stenopteryx ; (Baetis) finitimus,

amnicus, pictus; (Siphl.) Linneanus; Isonychia manca; (Colobur.) ha-

leuticus; Cronicus; (Heptag.) nivata, borealis, cupulata, alpicola: in all,

four new genera, twenty-four species.

[The types of new species described in (Etn. 1870) and (Etn. 1871) are

in the following collections :—

In Mr. Wormald’s, S. armatus; in Linné’s, S. Linneanus; in Mr.

Walker’s, L. furcifera, C. haleuticus; in Mr. Dale’s, C. 4-dentatus, S. Lin-

neanus, H. borealis; in M. de Selys-Longchamps’, C. cuspidatus, Huthy-

plocia, L. mollis; in the Oxford Museum, EF. immaculata, L. inconspicua;

in Mr. McLachlan’s, P. Savignit, Euthyplocia, L. strigata, nodularis,

auriculata, mollis, C. stenopterya, B. pictus, I. manca, S. armatus; the

rest are in the British Museum.]

Nominibus homonymicis signa anteposita significant :—

|| nomen preoccupatum.

tT nomen abusum.

Signo ! nomini auctoris premisso, me exemplar typicum insecti sui

vidisse, significatur.

Ante nomina generum numeralia loca systematica generum designant.

on the Ephemeride. 17

INDEX SPECIERUM,

Operibus supra enumeratis descriptarum.

LV. ASTHENOPUS, n. g.—=Palingena, auct., p- Typ. A. curtus.

curtus,! nov. sp.; in Palingenia, Hag., Campsurus, Etn. [not described] ;

= og im.

_ dorsalis, Burm.; in Palingenia, Burm.

XX. Banris, Leach, 1815; Sam. 1819; Etn. 1868. Typ. B. binoculatus.

t Baetis, Say, Curt., et auct., p.=Heptagenia, &e.

albivitta, ! Walk. Cat. 566; Hag. Am. Syn. 304, list; =Hevagenia., 3 im.

albus (alba), Say, Long’s 2d Exp. ii. 305; Le Conte, rep. 1. 204; Walsh,

Proc. Ent. Soe. Philad. ii. 170, 193, Note 12, in Cloe (A.); in

Palingenia, Hag. 9. :

alpinus, Pict.; in Cloe, Pict.: Clogon, Walk.

a alternata, Say, Long’s 2d Exp. ii. 304; Le Conte, rep. i. 203; Hag. Am.

Syn. 49; Walsh. Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 369, &

Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 169, 189=Siphlurus.

anvnicus, ! nov. sp.

angulata, ! Walk. Cat. 564=Hezxagenia bilineata, g im.

angustipennis, ! Ramb. in Ephemera; Ed. Pict. Nevr. d’Esp. 23 = Hepta-

genia, 2 subim.

annulata, Pz., in Ephemera ;— indeterminable.

|| annulata, ! Walk. Cat. 567; Hag. Am. Syn. 48=Siphlurus; g im.

anomata, Pict. Trait. de Pal. ed. 2, ii. 871; Hag. Verh. zool.-bot. Ver.

Wien, 1854, p. 227; Hag. & Pict. Org. Rest. im Bernst. ii. 75,

pl. vi. 1, b. c. = Cronicus, g im.

arida, Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. viii. 42 ; Walk. Cat. 562; Le

Conte, rep. ii. 412; Hag. Am. Syn. 46; Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat.

Se. Philad. 1862, p. 370, & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 170, 191,

Note 8, 192, Note 11=Siphlurus.

atrebatinus, ! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 4, 3.

aurantiaca, Burm. Handb. ii. 801; Her.-Schef. 346; Pict. Ephem. 191 ;

Walk. Cat. 560—=Heptagenia iridana ?

australasica, Pict. Ephem. 189, pl. xxiv. 1,2; Walk. Cat. 559 = Lepto-

phlebia, g.

autumnalis, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121; Ste. Ill. vi. 67 = [probably a

monstrous ¢] binoculatus.

basalis, ! Walk. Cat. 565 (nec Ste. Cat.); Hag. Am. Syn. 50 =Heptagenia,

3 im.

Bellieri, ! Hag. An. Soe. Ent. Fr. 1860, p. 746=Heptagenia, 9 im.

bilineata, Say, Long’s 2d Exp. ii. 303; Le Conte, rep. i. 2083=Hezxagenia,

éo im.

binoculatus (bioculata), Lin., in Ephemera, Lin.; Leach, E. Ene. ix. 137 ;

Sam. E. Comp. 259, Ent. Cab. ii. n. 53, pl. xxiv. 1; Ste. Il. vi.

65.

buceratus, ! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p.5; ¢ im.

canadensis, |! Walk. Cat. 569; Hag. Am. Syn. 47=Heptagenia, g im.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—parri. (MARCH.) C

18 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Barris (continued).

cornea, Curt. 1.1 Mag, 1884, p. 121; Ste. Ill. vi. 65; Pict. Ephem. 193;

Walk. Cat. 560 ; »-Aeterminable.

cered, Pict. Ephem. 183, pl. xxiii. 2; Wak. Cut FE°—Montagenia flavi-

pennis, g im.

cingulata,! Ste. Ill. vi. 67=Leptophlebia fusca, § im.

costalis, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 120; Ste. Ill. vi. 64; Pict. Ephem.

194; Walk. Cat. 561—Heptagenia elegans (2 im. s.s., Curt. ;

é im.,! Ste.).

|| costalis, Burm. Handb. ii. 800; Brau. Reise Novara (1868) = Lepto-

phlebia, subim.

culicifornus, Lin.; in Ephemera, Lin.; sp. dub.

t culiciformis, ! Ste. Il. vi. 66=pheops, f im.

cyanops, Pict. Ephem. 171, pl. xx.2; Walk. Cat. 556 = Heptagenia

elegans, g im.

debilis, ! Walk. Cat. 569; Hag. Am. Syn. 46=Leptophlebia cupida, ? im.

|| debalis, ! Walk.; in Cloeon, Walk.=Baetis, 9 im.

t debilis, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 871; Proe. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 170; (in Baetis [C], Walsh)=Siphlurus ?

determinata,! Walk. Cat. 567 =Heptagenia, g im.

dispar, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 120; B. HE. xi. 484; ! Ste. Ill. vi. 68=

Heptagenia venosa, g im.

elegans, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 120;! Ste. Ill. vi. 64; Pict. Ephem.

193; Walk. Cat. 560; Hag. Brit. Syn. 25= Heptagenia.

fallaw,! Hag. An. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1864, p. 88 =Heptagenia zebrata, g

subim.

fasciatus, Pict.; in Cloe, Pict.; Cloeon, Walk.

femorata, Say, W. Q. R. ii. 162; Le Conte, rep. i. 171; Hag. Am. Syn.

48; Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 368, & Proc.

Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 169, 188, Note 6=Siphlurus.

? ferrugineus, Walsh; in Cloe (A), Walsh; ¢ im.

jinitimus,! nov. sp.

flaveola, Pict. Ephem. 186, pl. xxiii. 4; ! Walk. Cat. 559; Hag. Am. Syn.

44—Heptagenia; 9 im. Pict., 2 subim. & im. Walk.

flavescens, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121; Pict. Ephem. 193; Walk. Cat.

561; probably binoculatws, subim.

flavida, ! Ed. Pict. Nevr. d’Hsp. 24, pl. iii. 1-6=Siphlurus, im.

fluctuams, Walsh ; in Cloe (B), Walsh.

fluminum, Pict. Ephem. 164, pl. xvi.-xix.; Lab. & Imh., Bd.iv.; Walk.

Cat. 556; Brau. N. Aust. 26; Meyer-Diir, Mitt. Schw. Ent.

Ges. i. 221; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 1384=Heptagenia.

t fuminum,! Hag. An. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1864, p. 38; Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi.

229 (list) =Heptagenia zebrata, § im.

forcipula, Pict. Ephem. 169, Note=Heptagenia venosa ?, g im.

fusca, Burm. Handb. ii. 800; Her.-Scheef. 346; Sieb. Beitr. xii. 3; [imis-

printed fusa, Walk. Cat. 541, in synon.]—=Leptophlebia vespertina.

|| fusca, ! Walk. Cat. 568; Hag. Am. Syn. 45= Heptagenia, im.

fuscata, Lin., in Ephemera; ! Ste. Ill. vi. 66=binoculatus, g im.

on the Ephemeride. 19

Baetis (continued).

i| fuscata, ! Walk. Cat. 570; Hag. Am. Syn. 47=Ephemerella invaria,

im. ¢, & subim.

? || fuscus, Schn. ; in Cloe, Schn.

gigantea, Hag. & Pict. Org. Reste im Bernst. ii. 75; incerte sedis.

grossa, Hag. & Pict. Org. Reste im Bernst. ii. 75; incerte sedis.

guttata, Pict. Ephem. 187, pl. xxiv.3; Walk. Cat. 559= Heptagenia, 2 im.

horaria, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 66; a Cloeon, 9 subim., indeterminable.

ignava, ! Hag. Am. Syn. 47=Leptophlebia cupida, 2 subim.

ignota, ! Walk. Cat. 571=Isonychia, g im.

interlineata, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 188; [for Siphlwrus

femoratus, Walsh, if distinct from S. femoratus, Say].

interpunctata, Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. viii. 41; Pict. Ephem.

194; Walk. Cat. 562; Le Conte, rep. ii. 411; Hag. Am.

Syn. 44= Heptagenia.

invaria, ! Walk. Cat. 568; Hag. Am. Syn. 48=Hphemerella, g im.

tridana, Kolen. Wien. Ent. Monatschr. iv. 383= Heptagenia.

lateralis, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121; ! Ste. Ill. vi. 65; Pict. Ephem.

175, pl. xxi.; Walk. Cat. 557; Hag. Brit. Syn. 28= Heptagenia.

longicauda, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 63; Pict. Ephem. 193; Walk. Cat. 560= Hepta-

genia.

t longicauda, Hag. Brit. Syn. 24= Heptagenia flavipennis, 2 im.

t longicauda, ! Ronalds, ed. v. pl. ix.=Heptagenia venosa, 9 im.

longipes, Hag. Verh. zool.-bot. Ver. Wien, 1854, p. 7; Hag. & Pict. Org.

Rest. im Bernst. ii. 76; incerte sedis.

luridipennis, Burm. Handb. ii. 801; Pict. Ephem. 192; ! Walk. Cat. 563,

¢ im.; Hag. Am. Syn. 49= Heptagenia.

lutea, Hag. Brit. Syn. 23= Heptagenia elegans.

luteolus, Mil. ;in Ephemera, Mil. ; ! Kin. Ent. Mo. Mag. v. 88= Centroptilum.

marginalis, Burm. Handb. ii. 801; Her.-Schef. 346; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3 ;—

description= Heptagenia elegans ? — [reference = Potamanthus

luteus ? ]

melanonyx, Pict. ; in Cloe, Pict. ; Cloeon, Walk.

mellea, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121= Potamanthus luteus, subim.

montana, Pict. Ephem. 172, pl. xx. 3; Walk. Cat. 557; Brau. N. Aust. 26;

Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 184=Heptagenia, g im.

t? montana, Hag. Brit. Syn. 26= Heptagenia insignis, im.

niger (nigra), Lin.; in Ephemera, Lin.; Ste. Ul. vi. 67; (Ronalds, ed. i.

pl. ix. 16-17 [? 17, type] ) ; !Htn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 6.

|| nigra, Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229=Heptagenia ?

noveboracana, Licht.; in Ephemera, Licht.; Hag. Am. Syn. 50 = Hepta-

genia luridipennis ?

obesa, Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. viii. 43; Pict. Ephem. 195 ;

Walk. Cat. 563; Le Conte, rep. li. 412; Hag. Am. Syn. 45= Beetis-

ca, subim.

obscura, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 65; Walk. Cat. 558=Ephemerella ignita, 9 im.

tobscura, Hag. Brit. Syn. 27; ? Pict. Ephem. 152, pl. xxiii. 1= Heptagenia

lateralis, ¢ im.

20 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Barris (continued).

pheops, | Ktn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 4.

pictus, | noy. sp.

Picteti, Meyer-Diir, Mitt. Schw. Ent. Ges. i. 221= Heptagenia, subim.

posticatus, Say ; in Cloeon, Say ; Cloe, Hag. ‘

procellaria, Fuessly, in Ephemera; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229; sp.

incert# sedis.

propinquus, Walsh ; in Cloe (B), Walsh.

pumilus, Burm.; in Cloe, Burm.; Cloeon, Walk.

purpurascens, Pict. Ephem. 174, pl. xx. 4; Walk. Cat. 557; Brau. N.

Aust. 26; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 185= Heptagenia venosa ?

pygmeus, Hag.; in Cloe, Hag.

remota, Walk. Cat. 564=Coloburus humeralis, im.

reticulata, Burm. Handb. ii. 801; Her.-Schef. 346; Pict. Ephem. 192;

Sieb. Beit. xii. 3; Walk.. Cat. 561= Leptophlebia helvipes,

subim. ?

Rhodani, ! Pict.; in Cloe, Pict. ; Cloeon, Walk.

scambus, ! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 3.

scita, ! Walk. Cat. 570= Leptophlebia.

semicolorata, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121; ! Ste. Tll. vi. 64, pl. xxix. 2,

é im.; Pict. Ephem. 178, pl. xxii. 4-9; Walk. Cat. 557 ;

Hag. Brit. Syn. 26=Heptagenia.

semitincta, Pict. Ephem. 180, pl. xxii. 1-3; Walk. Cat. 558; Brau. N.

Aust. 26; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 183; (misprinted semitireta in

Hag. Uebers. 368)—Heptagenia semicolorata, var. ? ?

sicca, Walsn, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 371, Proc. Ent. Soc.

Philad. ii. 170, 191, Notes 9, 10, 192, Note 11=Siphlurus.

speciosus, Pod.; in Ephemera, Pod.; sp. incerta.

straminea, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121=Heptagenia elegans, subim.

sicca.

striata, | Ste. I. vi. 65=pheops, 9.

subfusca, | Ste. Ill. vi. 64; Pict. Ephem. 194; Walk. Cat. 561= Heptagenia

longicauda, 9 im.

sulphurea, Pict. Ephem. 185, pl. xxiii. 3; Walk. Cat. 558; Ausser. Neur.

Tirol. 134= Heptagenia elegans, g im.?

sylwicola, ! Kd. Pict. Nevr. d’Esp. 24, pl. iii. 7-12 = Heptagenia, im.

Taprobanes,! Walk. Cat. 567; Hag. Ceyl. Syn. 476=Leptophlebia, g im.

tena, ! Ktn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p.5; ¢ im.

tessellata, | Walk. Cat. 566= Heptagenia vicaria, 9 subim. ?

|| tessellata, Hag. Am. Syn. 50 = either a Heptagenia, or Leptophlebia Co-

lombie, ? subim.; (preserved in alcohol).

torrida, ! Walk. Cat. 571-=Heptagenia, 9 im.

undatus, Pict.; in Cloe, Pict.; Cloeon, Walk.

unicolor, Hag.; in Cloe, Hag.

venosa, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 63; Burm. Handb. ii. 801; Her.-Schef. 346; Pict.

Kphem. 167, pl. xx. 1; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3; Walk. Cat.556; Brau.

N. Aust. 26; Hag. Brit. Syn. 22; Meyer-Diir, Mitt. Schw. Ent.

Ges. 1.221; ! Hag. An. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1864, p. 38; Oul. 1867, p.

27; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 1833= Heptagenia.

on the Hphemeride. 21

Baetis (continued).

verna, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 66=pheops.

vernus, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121l=pree.?

? verticis, Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. viii. 42; Walk. Cat. 562

Le Conte, rep. ii. 412; Hag. Am. Syn. 46; Walsh, Proc. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 204, Note 19.

vicaria, ! Walk. Cat. 565; Hag. Am. Syn. 48=Heptagenia, g im.

zebrata, ! Hag. An. Soe. Ent. Fr. 1864, p. 88= Heptagenia, g subim. ? im.

XVII. Barisca, Walsh ; in Baetis, Say. Typ. B. obesa.

obesa, Say, in Baetis, Say; ! Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862,

p. 878; Proce. Ent. Soe. Philad. ii. 187, iii. 200-6, fig.

Bracuycercvs, Curt. (1834)=Cenis, Ste. (1835-6), p.

chironomiformis, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 122=Cenis.

Harrisella, Curt. ib.; (Har. Exp. pl. vi. 1-3) =Cenis luctuosa, ? , ?

minima, Curt. ib.=Cenis dimidiata ?

BracHypuuesBia, Westw. (1840) =Baetis, Leach (1815).

bioculata,! Westw. Intr. ii. 25, Add. to Gen. Syn. 158=Baetis binocu-

latus, g im.

XV. Canis, Ste. (1835-6); in Ephemera, Lin.; Brachycercus, Curt. ;

Oxycypha, Burm. Typ. C. macrura.

amica, Hag. Am. Syn. 55=diminuta, g im. ?

argentata, Pict. Ephem. 279, pl. xliii.6; Walk. Cat. 581; 9 subim.

brevicauda, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 61; Pict. Ephem. 286; Walk. Cat. 582=dinu-

diata, 2 im.

chironomiformis, Curt. in Brachycercws; ! Ste. Ill. vi. 62; 2 im. (mis-

printed chironoformis, Hag. Brit. Syn. 11, in synon.).

dimidiata, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 61; Pict. Ephem. 286; Walk. Cat. 582; Hag.

Brit. Syn. 12; Oul. 1867, p. 27; im.

diminuta, ! Walk. Cat. 584; Hag. Am. Syn. 55; ¢ im.

discolor, Burm.; in Oxycypha, Burm.

grisea, Pict. Ephem. 278, pl. xlv. 1,2; Walk. Cat. 581; Brau. N. Aust.

25; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 133=macrura.

halterata, Hag. Brit. Syn. ll=chirononuformis.

t halterata,! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1868, pp. 279, 280, 281=luctuosa,

od im. & nymph.

Harrisella, Ste. Ill. vi. 61; Pict. Ephem. 286; Walk. Cat. 583=Jluc-

tuosa, 9.

hilavis, Say; in Ephemera, Say; Walk. Cat. 583; Hag. Am. Syn. 54;

Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 381, Proc. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 179.

interrupta, Ste. Ill. vi. 62; Pict. Ephem. 287 ; Walk. Cat. 583=macrura, ? .

lactea, Burm.; in Oxycypha, Burm.; ! Pict. Ephem. 276, pl. xliu. 1-4 &

xliv.; Walk. Cat. 581; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229=chirono-

miformis.

luctuosa, Burm.; in Oxycypha, Burm.; Pict. Ephem. 283, pl. xlv. 3;

Walk. Cat. 582; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229.

macrura, Ste. Ill. vi. 60, pl. xxix. 1; Walk. Cat. 583; Hag. Brit. Syn.

10;! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1868, pp. 279-82.

22 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Canis (continued).

[nigra, Hag. MS., Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 179; not described. }

oophora, Pict. Ephem. 284, pl. xlv. 4; Walk. Cat. 582; 92 im.

pennata, ! Ste. Ill. vi.61; Pict. Ephem. 286; Walk. Cat.588=dimidiata, ? .

perpusilla, ! Walk. Cat. 585; Hag. Ceyl. Syn. 477; ¢ im.

sinensis, ! Walk. Cat. 584=Cloeon russulum, & im.

varicauda, (Say. 1817, pl. ii. 6, 7), Pict. Ephem. 281, pl. xliii.5; Walk.

Cat. 581=Tricorythus, g im. ¢.

Ill. Camrsurus, Etn. 1868; in Ephemera, Perch.; Palingenia, auct.

Typ. C. latipennis.

albicans, Perch. ; in Ephemera, Perch.; Palingenia, Pict.; ¢ im.

albifilum, ! Walk. ; in Palingenia, Walk.; g im.

curtus, ! Htn. Ent. Mo. Mag. vy. 84 [not described] =Asthenopus, g im.

cuspidatus, ! nov. sp., ¢ im.

latipennis, ! Walk.; in Palingenia, Walk.; g im.

? puella, Pict.; in Palingenia, Pict.; 9 im.

quadridentatus, ! noy. sp., ¢ im.

XIX. Crntrroptinum, EHtn. 1869; Baetis (A), Hin. 1868. Typ. C. lu-

teolum.

lituratwm, Pict. ; in Cloe, Pict.; Cloeon, Walk.

luteolum, Miil.; in Ephemera, Miil.; Baetis, Etn. 1868; !Etn. Ent. Mo.

Mag. vi. 132.

pennulatum, |! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 2.

stenopteryx, ! nov. sp.

Cuuoron, Lubbock (1863)=Cloeon, Leach (1815).

dimidiatum, Lub. Trans. Lin. Soc. xxiv. 61-7, pls. xvii-xviii; id. xxv.

477-95, pl. lviii-lix. 18 = Cloeon russulum.

dipterum, Lub. lib. cit. xxv. pl. lix. 19-21=Cloeon dipterum.

Croz, Burm. (1839)=Baetis & Cloeon, Leach, 1815, & Centroptilum,

Etn. 1869.

affinmis, ! Ramb. Nevr. 298=Cloeon dipterum, im.

albipennis, ! Ste. in Cloeon; Pict. Ephem. 271—=Centroptitum luteolum, g im.

alpina, Pict. Ephem. 257, pl. xl. 5=Baetis, g im.

auliciformis, ! Ronalds, v. No. 25 [misprint for culiciformis] =Baetis,

[sp. indeterminable] .

autumnalis, Curt. in Cloeon; Pict. Ephem. 270; vide Baetis.

bioculata, Lin., in Hphemera, L.; Pict. Ephem. 244, pl. xxxiv-v.; Hag.

Am. Syn. 52 (teste Walk., sed vide Walk. Cat. 572), Stet. Ent.

Zeit. xxvi. 229; Oul. 1867, p. 28= Baetis binoculatus.

brunnea, ! Ramb. Nevr. 298; Walk. Cat. 577, var. ? halterata; Hd. Pict.

Neyr. d’Esp. 26= Heptagenia lateralis, g subim.

cingulata,! Ste. in Cloeon; Pict. Ephem. 271=Leptophlebia fusca, g im.

cognata, | Ste. in Cloeon; Pict. Ephem. 272=Cloeon dipterum, 8 im.

consueta, Hag. Ceyl. Syn. 477 ; incert. gen. (Gen. XXII).

culiciformis, Lin., in Ephemera, L.; Pict. Ephem. 270; Hag. Am. Syn.

54= Baetis, sp. dub.

dimidiata, Curt. in Cloeon; Pict. Ephem. 272=Cloeon russulum.

on the Hphemeride. 23

Ciox (continued).

diptera, Burm. Handb. ii. 798; Her.-Schef. 346; ! Pict. Ephem. 266, pl.

xlii.; Schn. Stet. Ent. Zeit. vi. 340; Cal. (1848); Sieb. Beit.

xii. 3; Brau. N. Aust. 26; !Hag. An. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1864, p.

39, and Ent. Mo. Mag. ii. 25; Ed. Pict. Nevr. d’Hsp. 25; Oul.

1867, p. 27; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 185=Cloeon dipterwm.

+ diptera, Ronalds, v. No. 16=Baetis niger, subim.

dubia, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 380, Proc. Ent. Soc.

Philad. ii. 178=Cloeon.

fasciata, Pict. Ephem. 262, pl. xli. 4; Hag. Am. Syn. (list) 304= Baetis,

Q im.

ferruginea, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 379=? Baetis, im.,

subim.

fluctuans, Walsh, 1. c., & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad, ii. 178=Baetis, 9 im.

fusca, Schn. Stet. Ent. Zeit. vi. 340=? Baetis, 2 im.

fuscata, Pict. Ephem. 251, pl.xl. 1; Oul. 1867, p. 28=Leptophlebia cincta,

é im.

halterata, Burm. Handb. ii. 798; Her.-Schef. 346; ! Ramb. Nevr. 299;

(misprinted hatterata in Sieb. Beitr. xiii. 3)=Centroptilum

luteolum, g im.

horaria, Lin., in Ephemera, L.; Ramb. Nevr. 299; Pict. Ephem. 270;

Oul. 1867, p. 29=? Cenis dimidiata.

hyalinata, ! Ste., in Cloeon, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 271=Centroptilwm luteo-

ad lum, 2 im.

Uitura, Pict. Ephem. 260, pl. xli. 1-3=Centroptilum.

maderensis, ! Hag. Ent. Mo. Mag. ii. 25=Baetis Rhodant.

marginalis, Hag. Ceyl. Syn. i. 477, ii. 206; incert. sed. (Gen. XXII, 2).

melanonyx, Pict. Ephem. 258, pl. xl. 6= Baetis, g im.

mendaz, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 381, & Proc. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 178=Cloeon.

mollis, ! Hag. Am. Syn. 52 [not described] =Leptophlebia, g im.

obscura,! Ramb. Nevr. 297=Cloeon, 9 subim.

oclvacea,! Ste., in Cloeon, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 271=Centroptilum luteo-

lum, 2 im.

posticata, Say, in Cloeon, Say ; Hag. Am. Syn. 53=Baetis, g im.

propingua, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 207; [for vicina, Walsh] =

Baetis.

pumila, Burm. Handb. ii. 799; Her.-Schef. 346; Pict. Ephem. 253, pl.

xl. 2; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3; Brau. N. Aust. 26; ! Hag. An. Soc. Ent.

Fr. 1864, p. 39; Meyer-Dir, Mitt. Schw. Ent. Ges. i. 221;

Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 136= Baetis.

Tpumila, Hag., in Cloeon; Oul. 1867, p. 28=Baetis binoculatus.

t pumila, ! Ramb. Nevr. 298=Cloeon russulum, g im.

pygmea, Hag. Am. Syn. 54; Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 178 =

Baetis, 2 im.

Rhodani, ! Pict. Ephem. 248, pl. xxxvi-ix.; Brau. N. Aust. 26; ! Hag. An.

Soe. Ent. Fr. 1864, p. 39; Meyer-Diir, Mitt. Schw. Ent. Ges.

i. 221; ?, Oul. 1867, p. 28; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 136= Baetis.

24 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

CuoE (continued).

signata, Hag. Ceyl. Syn. i. 477, ii. 206; incert. gen. (Gen. XXII.)

solida, Hag. Ceyl. Syn. i. 477; incert. gen. (Gen. XXII. 2).

striata, Lin., in Ephemera, L. ; Pict. Ephem. 270; Oul. 1867, p. 28= Baetis

pumilus,?; vide Ephemera.

subinfuscata, ! Ramb. Nevr. 298; Walk. Cat. 577 (var. ? halterata) =

Cloeon, 2 subim.

translucida, ! Pict. Ephem. 255, pl. xl. 3, 4= Centroptilum luteolum, im.

tristis, Hag. Ceyl. Syn. i. 476; incert. gen. (Gen. XXII, 2 subim.).

undata, Pict. Ephem. 264, pl. xli.5; Hag. Am. Syn. 53=Cloeon?, g im.

unicolor, Curt., in Cloeon, Curt.; Burm. Handb. ii. 798; Pict. Ephem.

271; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3=Cloeon, sp. dub.

|| wnicolor, Hag. Am. Syn. 54;? Walsh, Proc. Acad. Philad. 1862, p. 350,

& Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 178= Baetis.

verna, Curt., in Cloeon, Curt.; Pict. Ephem. 270=Baetis pheops?

vespertina, Lin., in Ephemera, L.; Oul. 1867, p. 29=Leptophlebia ?

vicina, Hag. Am. Syn. 54; Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 178=Cloeon.

f vicina, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad.,1862, p. 380, & Proc. Ent.

Soc. Philad, ii. 207, Note 20=Baetis propinquus.

virgo, ! Ste., in Cloeon, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 272=Cloeon dipterum, g im.

XVIII. Cxroxzon, Leach (1815); in Ephemera, Lin.; Cloe, Burm. p.;

Cloeopsis, Etn., olim. Typ. C. dipterwm. t

albipenne,! Ste. Ill. vi. 69; albipennis, Walk. Cat. 579=Centroptilum

luteolum, 3 im.

alpina, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 574=Baetis.

autumnalis, Curt., in Baetis, Curt.; Walk. Cat. 578; vide Baetis.

bioculata, L., in Ephemera, L.; Walk. Cat. 572, 1 a-f=Baetis binoculatus.

} bioculatwm, Hag. Brit. Syn. 34; !Etn. An. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, p.

147 =Centroptilum luteolum.

cingulata, Ste., in Baetis, Ste.; Walk. Cat. 578=Leptophlebia fusca, $ im.

cognatwm,! Ste. Ill. vi. 69; cognata, Walk. Cat. 579=dipterwum, g im.

consobrinum, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 69=dipterum, ¢ im.

culiciformis,! Walk. Cat. 576= Leptophlebia helvipes, 2 im.

debilis, ! Walk. Trans. Ent. Soc. N.S. v. 199=Baetis, 9 im.

dimidiatum, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p.121; Hag. Brit. Syn. 32; dimidiata,

Walk. Cat. 5880=russulum.

t dimidiatum, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 69=dipterum, S im.

dipterwm, Lin., in Ephemera; Leach, E. Enc. ix. 187; Curt. Phil. Mag.

1834, p. 121; ! Ste. Ill. vi. 68, pl. xxix. 3; Hag. Brit. Syn. 29;

diptera, Walk. Cat. 575.

discolor, Burm., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 577=Cenis.

dubiwm, Walsh ; in Cloe (C), Walsh.

fasciata, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 575=Baetis ?.

fuscata, Walk. Cat. 573= Leptophlebia cincta.

halterata, Burm., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 577=Centroptilum luteolum, gf im.

horaria, Lin., in Ephemera, Lin. ; Walk. Cat. 576; vide Ephemera.

on the Bphemeride. 25

Croxon (continued).

hyalinatum, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 68; hyalinata, Walk. Cat. 579=Centroptilum

luteolum, 2 im.

litura, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 574=Centroptilwmn.

marmoratum, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 121l=dipterwm, 2 im.

melanonyx, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 574=Baetis.

mendaw, Walsh ; in Cloe (C), Walsh.

obscurum, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 12l=dipterum, subim.

|| obscurwm, ! Ramb.; in Cloe, Ramb.; 2 subim.

ochracewm,! Ste. Ill. vi. 68; ochracea, Walk. Cat. 578=Centroptilum

luteolum, 2 im.

pallida, Leach, HE. Enc. ix. 187; Sam. E. Comp. 259=dipterum.

posticata, Say, W. Q. R. ii. 162; Le Conte, repr. i. 172=Baetis, g im.

pumila, Burm., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 573= Baetis.

t pumilum, Hag. Brit. Syn. 33; ! Etn. An. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, p. 147

= Baetis binoculatus.

Rhodani, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 573; Hag. Brit. Syn. 31; ! Etn. An.

& Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, p. 147=Baetis.

russulum, Miil.; in Ephemera, Mil.

simile, ! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 2.

striata, Lin., in Ephemera; Walk. Cat. 576= Baetis pumilus ?

subinfuscatum, ! Ramb.; in Cloe, Ramb.; ? subim.

translucida, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 574=Centroptilum luteolum.

undata, Pict., in Cloe; Walk. Cat. 575=Baetis.

unicolore, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p.121; ! Ste. Ill. vi. 69; wnicolor, Walk.

Cat. 579=sp. anceps.

verna, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 1217 ! Ste. Ill. vi. 69; ! Walk. Cat. 578=

Baetis pheops, g im.

vicinum, Hag.; in Cloe, Hag.

virgo, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 70; Walk. Cat. 580=dipterum, g im.

vitripennis, Blanch. ; in Ephemera (Cloe), Blanch.

Cuoxorsis, Etn. (1866) =Cloeon, Leach.

diptera, Kin. An. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, p. 146=Cloeon dipterwm.

diptera, var., Ktn. op. cit. 1867, p. 401=Cloeon russulum.

XXIV. Coxozurvs, Etn. (1868); in Palingenia, Walk. Typ. C. hume-

ralis.

haleuticus, ! nov. sp., ¢ im.

humeralis, ! Walk. ; in Palingenia, Walk.

XXY. Cronicus, nov. gen.

anomalus, Pict. ; in Baetis, Pict.

Ecpyurvs, Etn. (1868); [mis-spelt Hedyonwrus] = Heptagenia.

venosus, Fab., in Ephemera, Fab.; Htn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1868, p, 141, n.

X. Epuemera, Lin. 1735; Sam. 1819; Pict. 1843-5; Hag.; Brau.;

Walsh; Houghton, 1865; Etn. = Ephemera, Lin. c.

3-set. p. Typ. E. vulgata.

26 Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

EprEemeEra (continued).

albicans, Perch. vi. pl. iv. l=Campsurus, 9 im.

albipennis, Retz. n. 181=Leptophlebia vespertina.

|| albipennis, Atk. Zool. i. 272-5=Cenis dimidiata.

|| albipennis, Fab. HE. §. III. i. 70= Leptophlebia cincta.

t albipennis, Voigt, v. 310; Blanch. H. N. iti. 54, pl. iii. 1; Ramb.

Nevr. 296= Polymitar cys virgo.

{ albipennis, Walck. ii. 9; Lat. H. N. xiii. 98? =Baetis culiciformis.

albipes, Scop. E. Carn. 264; Vill. iii. 22; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 421=Cen-

troptilum luteolum, g subim.?

angustipennis, | Ramb. Névr. 295; Walk. Cat.571= Heptagenia, subim. ?.

annulatd, Mil. Pr. 143=Cloeon dipterum.

|| annulata, Pz. Explic. Schef. Ic. clvi.= Baetis, sp. anceps.

apicalis, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 59=Hphemerella ignita, g im.

atrostoma, Web. 99= Hewagenia?, subim.

australis, ! Walk. Cat. 5838= Leptophlebia.

berolinensis, Mil. Pr. 143, n.= Heptagenia venosa ?

bioculata, Lin. (Act. Ups. 27); (i. F. 8S. 751); x. 8. N. i. 547; i. F. S.

1473; (Geof. ii. 239.5, pl. xiii. 4); Mil. F. Frid. 556; Lin.

xii. 8. N. 906; Georg. Bem. i. 190; Fab. 8. H. 304 & Sp. In. i.

384; Thunb. 81; Fab. Mant. i. 244; Vill. iii. 18; Gmel.

2629; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 419; Fab. E. 8. III. i.:70; Schr. F.

B. II. ii. 199; Ced. 184; Walck. ii. 9; Lat. H. N. xiii. 97;

Shaw, pl. Ixxxi.; Lam. ed. 1, iv. 221; Stew. *Hlem. II. ii.

225; Guer. Ic. ii. pl. lx. 9; Grif. ii. pl. xciv. 9; Zet. 1046;

Westw. Intr. ii. 25; Blanch. H. N. iii. 54=Baetis binocu-

latus.

+ bioculata, Foure. HE. Par. ii. 352=Baetis pheops, subim. ?

+ bioculata, Pz. Explic. Scheef. Ic. cexxix.= Heptagenia fluminum.

+ bioculata, var., Pz. Explic. Schef.*Ic. cexxix. & F. Germ. heft. xciy. 7

=Heptagenia elegans ?

t bioculata, Rom. 23, pl. xxiv. 7=pree. ?

brevicauda, Fab. BE. 8. III. i. 69; Walck. ii.9; Lat. H. N. xiii. 96;

Zet. 1045=Cenis macrwra, 9 subim.?

f brevicauda, Blanch. H. N. ii. 54=Cenis luetuosa.

[cellulosa, Hag.= Dictyonewra. |

chlorotica, ! Ramb. Névr. 296; Walk. Cat. 540=Potamanthus luteus, 3

subim. ;

cincta, Retz. n. 182; (De G. Mem. ii. 650, pl. xvii. 17-18) = Leptophlebia.

cognata,! Ste. Ill. vi. 56; Curt. B. E. xv. 708=danica.

Colombia, ! Walk. Cat. 5837= Leptophlebia, 2 subim.

communis, Retz. n. 180=vulgata.

cwliciformis, Lin. (i. F. 8. 753); x. S. N. i. 547; ii. F. S. 1475; (Pod.

Mus. Gr. 98, pl. i. 10, ?; or is this Leptophlebia marginata 7);

Scop. E. Carn. 264; (Geof. ii. 240. 6); Lin. xii. S. N. 907;

Fab. 8. E. 304; Mil. Pr. 143; Fab. Sp. In. 385 ; Thunb. 81;

Foure. HE. Par. ii. 352; Fab, Mant. i. 244; Berk. Syn. i. 150;

Vill. iii. 20; Gmel. 2630; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 420 (excl. note):

Fab. £. 8. IIT. i. a Lat. H. N. xiii. 98, ?; Stew. Elem. II.

ii. 225; Zet. 1046; Schi. Berl. E. Zeit. iii. 143= Baetis, sp.

anceps.

on the Hphemeride. 27

EPHEMERA (continued).

({t cwliciformis, Hill, Dee. pl. vii.= Perla.)

t culiciformis, Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 420, n.; Lat. H. N. xiii. 98? =Baetis

binoculatus.

t culiciformis, Blanch. H. N. iii. 55=Cloeon russulum.

t culiciformis, Fonscol. An. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1846, p. 49=Cloeon dipterum.

t culiciformis, Scop. E. Carn. 264=Centroptilum lituratum.

cupida, Say, W. Q. R. ii. 163; Le Conte, rep. i.172— Leptophlebia.

danica, Mil. F. Frid. 63, & Pr. 142; Vill. iii. 18; (Ronalds L., pl. xiii.

28-29); Walk. Cat. 535; Hag. Brit. Syn. 15.

ft danica, Pict. Ephem. 130, pl. vii.; Oul. 1867, p. 26=Tineata.

t danica, Ronalds V., No. 3l=vulgata.

decora, ! Walk. Cat. 537; Hag. Am. Syn. 38; Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat.

Se. Philad. 1862, p. 376, & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 177=gut-

tulata.

diaphana, Mil. Pr. 143=Baetis binoculatus, 3.

diluta, Ste. Ill. vi. 58= Ephemerella ignita.

diptera, Lin. ii. F. 8. 1477; (Reaum. vi. pl. xlv.); (Pontop. Nat. Dan. 223,

pl. xvii. ?); Lin. xii. S. N. 907, diag., nec obs.; (De G. Mem. ii.

656, pl. xviii. 1-9); Fab. 8. E. 304, & Sp. In.i. 385; Retz. n. 184;

Thunb. 81; Fab. Mant. i. 244; Raz. 210; Vill. iii. 20; (Zsch.

i. 51, No. 19); Gmel. 2680; Ros. F. Etr. ii. 9; Ol. Ene. Meth.

vi. 420; Fab. H.8. 1.1.71; Schr. F.B. I1.ii.199; Lat. H. N. xiii.

99; Shaw, 253; Lat. Gen. iii. 184; Leach, E. Ene. ix. 137, inter

syn.; Cuv. R. A. ed.i., iii. 480; Lamarck, ed. i., iv. 221; Sam.

K. Comp. 259; Cuv. R. A. ed. ii., 244; Blanch. R. A. (ed. Cro-

chard) xiii. 92; Zet. 1046; Voigt, v. 311; Blanch. H. N. iii. 55;

Duf. Rech. 580, note; Lat. Nouv. Dict. H. N.x.349; Verl. Mem.

49, pl. i=Cloeon dipterwm.

dislocans, |! Walk. Trans. Ent. Soc. N. 8. v. 198=Leptophlebia, 9 im.

dispar, | Ste. Ill. vi. 58=Leptophlebia helvipes, im. & subim.

dubia, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 59=Baetis pheops, g im.

erythropthalma, Schr. F. B. II. ii. 197 =Ephemerella ignita, g im.

exspectans, ! Walk.; in Potamanthus, Walk.; 2 subim.

familiaris, Schr. F. B. II. ii. 200, indeterminable.

fasciata, ! Hag.; in Potamanthus, Hag.

ferruginea; (Zsch. i. 50, No. 18) ; Gmel. 2630 ; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 422—

Heptagenia elegans ?

Lfimbriata, Bremi, MS.; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229; not described.]

flava, Schr. Beyt. 82, & En.n. 605; Vill. iii. 22; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 421;

Schr. F. B. IL. ti. 200= Baetis binoculatus.

flaveola, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 377, & Proc. Ent.

Soc. Philad. ii. 178.

flavicans, ! Ramb. Névr. 296; Walk. Cat. 536, ? var.=Potamanthus lw-

teus, @ im.

flavipennis, Duf. Réch, 580, n. = Heptagenia, 2 subim.

flosaque, Illig. Mag. i. 187; Triepke, Stet. Ent. Zeit. i. 54-8 = Palingenia

longicauda.

fuliginosa, Georg. (1802), p. 324=Palingenia longicauda.

28 Rey. A. EH. Haton’s Monograph

EPHEMERA (continued).

fusca, Curt. Phil. Mag. 1834, p. 120=Leptophlebia.

t fusca, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 58=Ephemerella ignita, g im.

fuscata, Lin. ii. F. 8. 1474; Mil. F. Frid. 557; Lin. xii. S. N. 907;

Thunb. 81; Vill. iii. 19; Gmel. 2629; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 419; Fab. EK.

8. 111.i.70; Walck.ii.9; Lat. H. N. xiii. 97=Baetis binoculatus.

fusco-grisea, Retz. n. 183= Heptagenia venosa, subim.

fuscula, Schr. F. B. IL. ii. 199= Heptagenia semicolorata, subim. ?

gemmata, Scop. E. Carn. 264; Mil, Pr. 143; Vill. iii. 22; Ol. Ene. Meth.

vi. 421=Heptagenia, 2 incert. sp.

[gigantea, Illig. Mag. i. 188; not described.]

glaucops, ! Pict. Ephem. 132, pl. viii. 1-3; Walk. Cat. 536; Brau. N.

Aust. 25; Hag. Brit. Syn. 16 (excl. Brit. subim.); Meyer,

Mitt. Schw. Ent. Ges. i. 221; Oul. 1867, p. 26; Ausser. Neur.

Tirol. 132.

guttata, Blanch. Chili, v vi. 106, Atl. Névr. ii. 2; in § Baetis, Blanch.=

Heptagenia, 2 im.

guttulata, Pict. Ephem. 135, pl. viii. 4; Walk. Cat. 536.

halterata, Fab. Gen. 244, & Sp. In. 384, & Mant. i. 248; Vill. iii. 18;

Gmel. 2629; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 418; Fab. E. 8. III. i. 69;

Schr. F. B. IL. ii. 198; Lat. H. N. xiii. 95; Shaw, pl. Ixxxi;

Zet. 1045= Leptophlebia cincta? (supposing Fabricius’ speci-

men to have been mutilated).

Hebes, Walk. Cat. 5388; Hag. Am. Syn. 39 = Leptophlebia cupida?

helvipes, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 59=Leptophlebia, 2 im.

helvola, Sulz. Gesch. 171, pl. xxiv. 7; Roem. Gen. pl. xxiv. 7= Heptagenia

elegans ?

hilaris, Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. viii. 43; Le Conte, repr. ii. 413

=Cenis.

hispanica, ! Ramb. Nevr. 294; Walk. Cat. 535 (vulgata, var. ?); EH. Pict.

Nevr. d’Esp. 23=danica, ¢ im.

horaria, Lin. (Act. Ups. 27; 1. F. 8. 754); x. 8. N. i. 547; ii. F. 8S.

1477; (Geof. ii. 240.8); Pontop. Nat. Dan. 223; Lin. xii. S. N

907; Fab. 8S. E. 304; Mil. Pr. 143; Fab. Sp. In. i. 358;

Foure. E. Par. ii. 8352; Fab. Mant. i. 244; Berk. Synop. i. 150;

Vill. iii. 20; Gmel. 2630; Ros. F. Etr.9; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 419;

Fisch. Vers. 566; Fab. E. S. III. i. 71; Schr. F. B. II. i. 199;

Ced. 185; Walck. ii. 10; Lat. H. N. xiii. 98; Stew. Elem. II. ii.

226 ?,=Cenis dimidiata ?

hyalina, Pz. Expl. Scheef. Ic. xlii.= Potamanthus luteus.

hyalinata, Zet. 1044= Leptophlebia cincta.

ignita, Pod. Mus. Gr. 97=Ephemerella, § im.

ammaculata, ! nov. sp., ¢ im.

inanis (Zsch. i. 50, No. 15); Gmel. 2629; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 421= Lepto-

phlebia cincta, g im. (the abdominal segments being counted from

behind forwards).

limbata, ! Guer. Ic. ii. pl. lx. 7, & iii. 384; Gray, Grif. Cl. Ins. ii. pl. xciv.

7; ! Ramb. Névr. 295, pl. viii. 2= Hexagenia, § im.

(liamnobia and limosa, Zet. MS., for L. vespertina, Zet.]

lineata, ! Etn. Trans. Ent, Sog¢, 1870, p. 1.

on the Ephemeride. 29

EPHEMERA (continued).

longicauda, 2 Ene. Meth. vi. 418; Lat. H. N. xiii. 96; Lamarck, ed.

., iv. 221; ! Ramb. Nevr. 295= Palingenia.

lutea, Lin.; (Geof. ii. 238.2); Lin. xii. S. N. 906; Fab. S. E. 303;

(? Schef. Ie. i. pl. xlii. 7); Schr. En. 603; Fab. Sp. In. i. 383, &

Mant. i. 243; Vill. iii. 17; Rem. 23; (Zsch. i. 50, No. 14) ; Gmel.

2628; Ros. F. Etr. ii. 8; ‘Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 417 ; Fisch. Vers. 565;

Fab. E. 9. III. i. 68 ; Seetzen (1794) ; Schr. F. B. IL. ii. OT

Walck. ii. 8; Lat. H. N. xiii. 95; Blanch. H. N. iii. 54; Dut.

* Rech. 580, n.= Potamanthus luteus.

ft lutea, Pz. Expl. Schef. Ic. clxxv.=Polymitarcys virgo.

} lutea, Foure. E. Par. ii. 352=Baetis binoculatus.

t lutea, Sulz. Gesch. 171, pl. xxiv.6; Roem. xxiv. 6; Burm. Handb.

ii, 804; ! Ramb. Nevr. 294; Her. -Schef. 346; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3=

glaucops, rina Ye

t lutea, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 55=Heptagenia elegans, g im.

luteola, Mil. Pr. 143=Centroptilwm luteolum, 9 im.

maculata, Lin. v. S. N. 62= vulgata.

|| maculata, Pod. Mus. Gr. 97= Heptagenia (? venosa), subim.

t maculata, Vill. iii. 22=H. danica, g im.

[madritensis, ! Ramb. MS.= Heptagenia angustipennis, 9 im. ?]

marginata, Lin. xii. S.N. 906; Fab. S. E. 303, & Sp. In. i. 384, & Mant.

i. 243; Vill. iii. 17; Gmel. 2628; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 417;

Fab. E. 8. IIT. i.69; Schr. F. B. II. ii. 198; Ced. 184; Walck.

ii. 8; Lat. H.N. xiii. 95; Shaw, pl. lxxxi.; Stew. Elem. II. ii.

225, pl. xvii. 14, 15; ! Ste. Dll. vi. 57; Zet. 1044; Blanch.

H.N. iii. 54=Leptophlebia, g im.

t marginata, Mil. Pr. 142= Potamanthus luteus ?

t marginata, Gor. & Prit. 61-9, pl. ii. 4-6; Bowerb. E. M. i, 239-44, pl. ii.

1-6; Lacord. ii. 77; Brullé, Blanch: He Nes. pl. xxive=

Cloeon dipterum (aquat. ).

marocana, Fab. E. S. III. i. 69= Polymitarcys (? virgo).

minima, Lin. v. S. N. 62; Mil. Pr. 142; Schr. F. B. II. ii. 198=

Canis dimidiata ?

minor, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 60=Leptophlebia fusca, 2 im.

mutica, Lin. (i. F. 8. 52); x. 8S. N.i. 547; ii. F. S. 1479; (Geof. ii. 240.7)

=Baetis pumilus, g subim. ?

myops, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soe. Philad. ii. 207, note20; g im.

natata, | Walk.; in Palingenia, Walk.; Hag. Am. Syn. 39; Walsh,

Proce. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 177=guttulata, 9 subim.

nervosa, Vill. iii. 22= Heptagenia venosa.

migra, Lin, ii. F. 8. 1478; xii. S. N. 907; Fab. S. E. 304; (Schef.

Ie. ii. pl. cliv.1, 2?) ; Schr. En. 606; Fab. Sp. In. 385, & Mant. i.

244; Vill. iii. 19; Gmel. 2629; Ros. F. Etr. ii. 8; Ol. Enc. Meth.

vi. 419; Fab. KE. S. III. i. 70; Ced. 185; Walck. ii.9; Lat. H. N.

xiii. 98; Pz. Expl. Schef. Ic. cliv.; Stew. Elem. II. ii. 225; Ste.

Ill. vi. 67; Blanch. H. N. iii. 54=Baetis niger, subim.

t nigra, Foure. E. Par. ii. 8352= Leptophlebia cincta, subim.

nigrimana, Duf. Rech. 580, n.= Heptagenia (¢, sp. P)-im.

30 Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

EPHEMERA (continued).

notata (Zsch. i. 50, No. 16); Gmel. 2630; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 422= Baetis

binoculatus, 2 im.

noveboracana, Licht. Cat. Mus. Holth. iii. 193= Heptagenia luridipennis ?

parvula, Scop. E. Carn. 264; Vill. iii. 22; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 421=Cen-

troptilum luteolum ?

plumosa, Mil. Pr, 142=Cenis (sp. P).

procellaria, Schwarz, Nomencl. Res. Ins. Bel. pl. xii. 1-3=Leptophlebia

marginata ?

[procera, Hag.= Dictyoneura. ]

pudica, Hag. Am. Syn. 39; Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 177; 2?

subim.; incerte sedis.

[ pusilla, Zet. MS.=Cenis macrura, 9 subim.? ]

reticulata, Foure. H. Par. ii. 350= Potamanthus luteus.

rosea, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 59=Ephemerella ignita, im.

rufa,! Ramb. Nevr. 296= Heptagenia venosa, 2 im. ?

rufescens, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 59= Ephemerella ignita, im.

[rupestris, Hill, Dec. 8; a Trichopteron.]

russula, Mil. Pr. 1483=Cloeon, g im.

serica, | NOV. Sp.

simulans, ! Walk. Cat. 586; Hag. Am. Syn. 388=guttulata, ¢ subim.

speciosa, Pod. Mus. Gr. 98; Schr. En. 604; Vill. iii. 22; Ol. Ene. Meth.

vi. 418; Lat. H. N. xiii. 97=Baetis, sp. incert.

stigma (Zsch. i. 50, No. 20); Gmel. 2630; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 422= Hepta-

genia lateralis or semicolorata, subim. ?

|| stigma, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 56=Leptophlebia marginata, g im.

striata, Lin. xii. 8. N. 907; Fab. S. EH. 304, & Sp. In. i. 385, & Mant. i.

244; Berk. Syn. i. 150; Vill. iii. 20; Gmel. 2680; Ol. Enc. Meth.

vi. 420; Fab. E. 8. III.i.71; Ced. 1385; Lat. H. N. xiii. 99; Stew.

Hlem. II. ii. 226= Baetis pumilus, g im.?

} striata, Mul. Pr. 143=Cloeon dipterum, 9 im.

{ striata, Blanch. H. N. iii. 55=Cloeon russulum, im. ?

+ striata, Walck. ii. 10O=Baetis binoculatws, subim. ?

submarginata, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 58=Leptophlebia helvipes, 2 im.

sulphurea, Mul. Pr. 142 = Heptagenia elegans, ?

Swammerdamiana, Shaw, vi. pl. lxxxii.=seq.

Swanmerdiana, ! Lat. H. N. xiii. 96, & Gen. iii. 184; Cuv. R. A. ed. 1, iii.

430; ed. ii. 244; Lamarck, ed. 1,iv. 221; Blanch. R. A. ed.

Crochard, xiii. 91, & H. N. iti. 54= Palingenia longicauda.

talcosa, ! Ste. Ill. vi. 57= Leptophlebia marginata, 9 im.

testacea (Zsch. i. 50, No. 17); Gmel. 2630; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 422= Baetis

pheops ?

venosa, (De G. Mem. ii. 625, pl. xviii. 1-4), Fab. S. E. 304, & Sp. In. i.

384; Thunb. 81; Fab. Mant.i. 243; Gmel. 2629; Ol. Ene. Meth.

vi. 418; Fab. HE. S. III. i. 70; Lat. H.N. xiii. 97= Heptagenia.

t venosa, Zet. 1045, § =Siphlurus, sp. incert.

vespertina, Lin. (It. Gil. 21; i. F. 8. 755); x. S. N. i. 547; ii. F.S.

1480; (Geof. ii. 239. 4); Lin. xii. S. N. 906; (De G. Mem. ii.

on the Ephemeride. 31

ErHEmera (continued).

646, pl. xvii. 11-16); Fab. S. B. 303, & Sp. In.i. 384, & Mant. i.

243; Berk. Synop. i. 150?; Vill. iii. 17; Gmel. 2628; Ros.

F. Etr. ii. 8; Ol. Enc. Meth. vi. 417; Fab. E. 8. III. i. 69;

Schr. F. B. Il. ii. 197 ; Ced. 134; Walck. ii. 9; Lat. H. N. xiii.

95; Stew. Elem. II. ii. 225; Zet. 1045; Westw. Introd. ii. fig.

61, 19 (gill) = Leptophlebia (aquat. ? ?), im.

virgo, Ol., (Clut. title p. fig. & pp. 61, 87, 90?; Mey. 197?; Targ.

1741, figs. 1,42; Reaum. vi. pls. xlii.-xliv; Schef. 1757, 1779,

Ie. ii. pl. elxxv. 1-3; Abh. iii. 30 pgs. pl. i.); Ol. Ene. Meth.

vi. 419; Lat. H. N. xiii. 98, & Nouv. Dict. H. N. x. pl. xix. 5=

Polymitarcys.

viridescens, Foure. E. Pav. ii. 351= Leptophlebia marginata, subim.

vitrea, Zet. 1045—Leptophlebia cincta, im.

vitripennis, Blanch. Chili, vi. 107, Atl. Nevr. ii. 3; in Ephemera (Cloe),

Blanch.=Cloeon. °

vulgata, Lin. (i. F. S. 750; De G. Obs. 463, pl. xvii. 2); Lin. x. 8. N.

i. 546; Kr. (1760) 26; Lin. ii. F. S. 1472; Sulz. (1761) 48, pl.

xvii. 103; Scop. E. Carn. 263 (diagn.), pl. xxxviii. 683; (Geof. ii.

238. 1); Mul. F. Frid.63; Pont. Nat. Dan. 223; Schef. Elem. pl.

Ixii. 1-3; Lin. xii. 8S. N. 906; Hout. (1766-9); (De G. Mem. ii. 621,

pls. xvi.-xvii. 1-10); Georg. Bem. i. 190; Fab.S. E. 303; (Schef. Ic.

i. pl. ix. 5-6) ; Mil. Pr. 142; Schr. En. 602; Fab. Sp. In.i. 383 ;

Thunb. 81; Foure. E. Par. ii. 351; Fab. Mant.i. 243; Berk. Syn.

1.150; Vill. iii. 16; (Zsch. i. 50, No. 138); Gmel. 2628; Ros. F.

Etr. i. 7; Ol. Ene. Meth. vi. 417; Fisch. Vers. 564; Fab. E.

S. III. i. 68; Schr. F. B. IL. ii. 196; Ced. 184; Walck. i. 8;

Lat. H. N. xiii. 94; Pz. Expl. Schef. Ic. ix. 5-6, & F. Germ.

heft. xciv. 16; Shaw, vi. pl. lxxxi.; Lat. Gen. iii. 184; Leach, E.

Ene. ix. 187; Cuv. R. A. ed. 1, iii. 480; Lamarck, ed. 1, iv. 221;

Stew. Elem. II. ii. 225; Cuv. R. A. ed. 2, v. 244; Guer. Ic. ii.

pl. lx. 8 (aquat.); Gray, Grif. Cl. Ins. ii. pl. xciv. 8 (aquat.);

! Ste. Ill. vi. 55; (Ronalds I., pl. xiv. 30-31); Dalhbom, 228;

Perch. vi. pl. iv. lm.; Burm. Handb. ii. 804; Zet. 1044; Voigt,

v. 811; Her.-Schef. 346; Blanch. H. N. iii. 53; Duf. Rech.

580, n.; Lat. Nouv. Dict. H. N. x. 348; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3;

Walk. Cat. 534; Hag. Brit. Syn. 14; Stein, Berl. Ent. Zeit. vii.

414; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229.

+ rulgata, Don. B. I. iv. 53, pl. exxviii.; Sam. E. Comp. 260, pl. vii. 2;

Wood, ii. 21-3, pl. xlvii.; Dum. Cons. Gen. 204, pl. xxviii. 4, 5;

Blanch. R. A. ed. Crochard, xiii. 91, xiv. pl. cii, 1-¢ ; Newport,

Tod’s Cye. ii. 864, fig. 345; Westw. Introd. ii. fig. 61, 1 (the

abdominal spots being reversed)-15; Blanch. H. N. iii. 53;

!Ramb. Nevr. 293; Pict. Ephem. 126, pls. i-vi.; Ronalds V.

no. 28; Brau. N. Aust. 25; E. Pict. Névr.d’Hsp. 22; Oul. 1867,

p. 25; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 13l=danica.

t vulgata, Wagner, Isis, 1832, p. 332, pl. ii. 1= Baetis (aquat.).

XVI. EpxemMEReLia, Walsh (1862); in Ephemera, c. 3-set., Pod.; Pota-

manthus, Pict.; Baetis, Walker. Typ. EH. invaria.

ened, Pict.; in Potamanthus, Pict.

consimilis, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 378; ¢ im.

excrucians, ! Walsh, lib. cit., p. 877, & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 178=

imvaria.

gibba, Pict.; in Potamanthus, Pict.

ignita, Pod.; in Ephemera, Pod.

invaria, | Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

32 Rey. A, E. Eaton’s Monograph

Epnoron, Will.

leukon, Will. Trans. Am. Soc. Philad. v. 71-3=Baetis ?

IX. Evruypnocta, nov. gen. Typ. E. Hecuba.

Hecuba, ! Hag.; in Palingenia, Hag.; 9 im.

HemeErosivs, Clut. cap. viii. fig. & p. 100= Palingenia longicauda.

XXVI. Hezpracenia, Walsh (1863); in Ephemera, Poda; Baetis, Say;

Palingenia, Walk. Typ. H. flavescens.

alpicola, ! noy. sp.

angustipenmis, ! Ramb.; in Ephemera, Ramb.; Baetis, Hd. Pict.

annulifera, ! Walk.; in Palingenia, Walk.

basalis, ! Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

Bellieri, ! Hag.; in Baetis, Hag.

borealis, ! nov. sp., ¢ im.

canadensis, ! Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

cruentata, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 205, note 19.

cupulata, ! noy. sp.

determinata, ! Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

elegans, Curt.; in Baetis, Curt. :

fiaveola, Pict.; in Baetis, Pict.

flavescens, ! Walsh; in Palingenia (C), Walsh.

flavipennis, Duf.; in Ephemera, Dut.

fluminum, Pict.; in Baetis, Pict.

fusca, ! Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

guttata, Pict.; in Baetis, Pict.

insignis, ! (Ronalds I. pl. xi. 22); Etn. Trans. Ent. Soe. 1870, p. 7.

interpunctata, Say; in Baetis, Say; Palingenia (C), Walsh (1862).

tridana, Kolen.; in Baetis, Kolen.

‘lateralis, Curt.; in Baetis, Curt.

longicauda, ! Ste.; in Baetis, Ste.

lwridipennis, Burm.; in Baetis, Burm.

maculipennis, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 206, note 19.

montana, Pict.; in Baetis, Pict.

wigrimana, Duf.; in Ephemera, Duf.; sp. dub.

nivata, ! Nov. sp.

Picteti, Meyer-Diir; in Baetis, Meyer-Diir.

pulchella, Walsh; in Palingenia (C), Walsh.

semicolorata, Curt.; in Baetis, Curt.

simplex, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 204, note 19.

sylvicola, |! Hd. Pict.; in Baetis, Ed. Pict.

tessellata, Hag.; in Baetis, Hag.; incerte sedis (perhaps a Leptophlebia).

torrida, ! Walk. ; in Baetis, Walk.

venosa, Fab.; in Ephemera, Fab.; Baetis, Ste.

vicaria, ! Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

vitrea, | Walk.; in Palingenia, Walk.

on the Ephemeride. 35

HEPrTacEenta (continued).

volitans, | Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 7, ¢ im.

zebrata, ! Hag.; in Baetis, Hag.

VIII. Hexacknra, Walsh (1863); in Ephemera, Web.; Baetis, Say ;

Palingenia, Pict.

albivitta, | Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

? atrostoma, Web.; in Ephemera, Web.

bilineata, Say; in Baetis, Say; Palingenia, Walsh, 1862.

decolorata, Hag.; in Palingenia, Hag.

limbata, ! Guer.; in Ephemera, Guer.; Palingenia, Pict.

XXIII. Isonycuta, nov. gen. Typ. I. manca.

manca, | NOY. sp.

ignota, ! Walk.; in Baetis, Walk.

II. Lacunanz, Hag. (1868). Typ. L. abnormis.

abnornmis, Hag. Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 1868, p. 372-4, fig.; 9 im.

XII. Lepropuirst1s, Westw. (1840); in Ephemera, Reaumur; Baetis,

Ste.; Potamanthus, Pict.; Palingenia, Walk.

anmulata, ! Hag.; in Potamanthus, Hag.

auriculata, ! nov. sp.; ¢ im.

australasica, Pict.; in Baetis, Pict.

australis, ! Walk.; in Ephemera, Walk.

castanea, Pict.; in Potamanthus, Pict.

cincta, Retz. ; in Ephemera, Retz.

Colombice, ! Walk.; in Ephemera, Walk.; Palingenia, Hag.

costalis, Burm.; in Baetis, Burm.

cupida, Say; in Ephemera, Say ; Potamanthus, Hag.

dentata, ! nov. sp.; ¢ im.

dislocams, ! Walk.; in Ephemera, Walk.

femoralis, Hag.; in Potamanthus, Hag.

fusca, Curt.; in Ephemera, Curt.; Potamanthus, Pict.

furcifera, ! noy. sp.; g¢ im.

helwipes, ! Ste.; in Ephemera, Ste.

tmconspicua, |! noy. sp.; ¢ im.

Krueperi, Stein; in Potamanthus, Stein.

marginata, Lin.; in Ephemera, Lin.; Potamanthus, Hag.

modesta, | Hag.; in Potamanthus, Hag.

mollis, ! Hag.; in Cloe, Hag. [not described].

nebulosa, ! Walk.; in Palingenia, Walk.

nodularis,! nov. sp.; go im.

Picteti, Etn.; for Potamanthus } marginatus, Pict.

prisca, Pict.; in Potamanthus, Hag. & Pict.

scita, ! Walk. ; in Baetis, Walk.

strigata, ! nov. sp.; 9 im.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParTI. (MARCH.) D

34 Rey. A. H. Eaton’s Monograph

LeprorpHuEsia (continued).

Taprobanes, Walk. ; in Baetis, Walk.

vespertina, Lin.; in Ephemera, Lin.; Cloe, Oul.

Macrocercus, Westw. Partingt. Cyc. Nat. Hist. (1836) ii. 439=Cenis.

I. OxiconEurt, Pict. (1843-5).

anomala, Pict. Ephem. 290, pl. xlvii.; Walk. Cat. 585; Hag. Stet. Ent.

Zeit. xvi. 269, pl. i.; Am. Syn. list, 8304; 2 im.

ft anomala, Pict. Ephem. pl. xlvi.; Kirsch. Jahrb. Naturk. Nassau, heft

ix. 44-5=rhenana.

pallida, (? Costa, Faun. Asprom. pl.i. 2); O. rhenana, var. pallida, Hag.

Stet. Ent. Zeit. xvi. 268, pl. i.

rhenana, Imh. Bericht. x. 180; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xvi. 267, pl. i.; Brau.

N. Aust. 25; Mul. Ent. Mo. Mag. i. 262, ii. 182; ! Etn. Ent. Mo.

Mag. vy. 83.

Trimeniana, | M’Lachl. Ent. Mo. Mag. iv. 177-8; Etn. op. cit. v. 83; 2 im.

OxycypeHa, Burm. (1839) [misprinted Onycypha, Ramb. Nevr.] =Cenis.

discolor, Burm. Handb. ii. 797 =Cenis.

lactea, Burm. Handb. ii. 796 ; Her.-Schef. 346; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3=Cenis

chironomiformis.

luctuosa, Burm. Handb. ii. 797; Her.-Schef. 346; Sieb. Beit. xii. 83=

Cenis, & im.

VI. Paxincenta, Burm. (1839) ; in Ephemera, Ol. Typ. P. longicauda.

alba, Say, in Baetis, Say; Hag. Am. Syn. 40=Baetis, 9.

albicans, Burm. Handb. ii. 803; Pict. Ephem. 149, pl. xiii. 1-3; ! Walk.

Cat. 548 (excl. 2 ?); Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304—=Campsurus.

albifilwm, | Walk. Cat. 554 (excl. var.); Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304=Camp-

surus.

t albifilum var., ! Walk. loc. cit.=Asthenopus curtus, g im.

annulifera, | Walk. Trans. Ent. Soc. N. S. v. 199=Heptagenia, 9 im.

atrostoma, Web., in Ephemera, Web.; Pict. Ephem.157; Walk. Cat. 550;

Hag. Am. Syn. list 304= Hewagenia ?

bicolor, ! Walk. Cat. 552; Hag. Am. Syn. 48=Siphlurus, 2 subim.

bilineata, Say, in Baetis, Say; Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862,

p. 373, & Proc, Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 174-5, 189, 199= Hexagenia.

{ bilineata, Hag. Am. Syn. 41= Hexagenia limbata.

Colombie, ! Walk.; Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304=Leptophlebia, 9 subim.

concinna, | Walk. Cat. 553=Leptophlebia cwpida, g im.

continua, ! Walk. Trans. Ent. Soc. N. 8. v. 199=Hewxagenia albivitta,

3 im.

curta, ! Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304; for albifilum, var., Walk.=Asthenopus.

decolorata, Hag. Am. Syn. 48=Hevragenia, 9 subim.

dorsalis, Burm. Handb. ii. 803, 1015; Pict. Ephem. 153, pl. xiii. 5; Walk.

Cat. 549; Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304—=Asthenopus, 9.

(dorsigera, Hag. Am. Syn. list; not described.]

flawescens, ! Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 373, & Proc.

Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 177= Heptagenia.

on the Ephemeride.

PaLinaEnia (continwed).

fuliginosa, Georg.; in Ephemera, Georg.=longicauda.

gigas, Hag. Verh. zool.-bot. Ver. Wien, 1854, p. 227; incerte sedis.

Hecuba, ! Hag. Am. Syn. 40=Euthyplocia, 9 im.

horaria, Burm. Handb. ii. 802; Her.-Schef. 846; Sieb. Beit. xii. 3; Hag.

Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229; Loew, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, xvi.

947 = Polymitarcys virgo.

humeralis, |! Walk. Cat. 552=Coloburus, 9 subim.

indica, Pict. Ephem. 151, pl. xiii. 4; Walk. Cat. 549= Polymitarcys, 2 im.

interpunctata, Say, in Baetis, Say; Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad.

1862, p. 374, & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 177, 190= Hepta-

genia.

lata, ! Walk. Cat. 550, 3.

latipemnis, ! Walk. Cat. 554 (excl. var.); Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304=Camp-

surus, im., subim.

limbata, ! Pict. Ephem. 146, pl. xii.; Walk. Cat. 548; ! Walsh, Proc.

Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 373, & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad.

ii. 176, 199, with No. 4= Hewxagenia.

} limbata, Hag. Am. Syn. 42= Hewagenia bilineata.

longicauda, Ol., in Ephemera, Ol.; (Swam. 1675; ed. Tyson, p. 44, pl. i.-

v. 2 [aquat.] pl. v. 1, 3 et seq.-vili. [aer.] ; Blegny, 1680;

Scheef. Ie. iii. pl. eciv. 3); Burm. Handb. ii. 803; Her.-Scheef.

346; Pict. Ephem. 155, pls. xiv, xiv bis, xvi.; Corn. (1848);

Walk. Cat. 549; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xv. 316-9, xx. 431;

Loew, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, xi. 409-10.

macrops, Pict. Trait. d. Paleont. II. ii. 371; Hag. Verh. zool.-bot. Ver.

Wien, 1854, p. 227; Pict. & Hag., Org. Rest. im Berns. ii. 74,

pl. vi. 2 b., pl. viii. 5= Polymitarcys.

natata, ! Walk. Cat. 551= Ephemera guttulata, 2 subim.

nebulosa, ! Walk. Cat. 554—=Leptophlebia, g im.

occultata, ! Walk. Cat. 551; Hag. Am. Syn. 43=Hewxagenia bilineata, 2

subim.

pallipes, ! Walk. Cat. 553=Leptophlebia cupida, 2.

puella, Pict. Ephem. 145, pl. xi. 4-5; Walk. Cat. 548; Hag. Am. Syn. 40

=Campsurus, 2 -im. ?

pulchella, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 375, & Proc. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 177, 203= Heptagenia.

Savignyi, Pict. Ephem. 157 ; Walk. Cat. 550 [not described] = Polymitarcys.

terminata, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 376, & Proc. Ent.

Soc. Philad. ii. 177= Heptagenia pulchella ?

[wnbrata, Hag. Am. Syn. list, 304; not described.]

virgo, Ol., in Ephemera, Ol.; Pict. Ephem. 141, pl. ix-xi. 3; Villa, 1847,

1-6; Walk. Cat. 547; Letzner, 1854; Brau. N. Aust. 25; Oul. 1867,

p. 26; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 182= Polymitarcys.

viridescens, ! Walk. Cat. 550= Hexagenia bilineata, ¢ subim.

vittigera, ! Walsh. Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 373, & Proc. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 174= Pentagenia.

vitrea, | Walk. Cat. 555—Heptagenia, 2 subim.

36 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

VII. Pernracenta, Walsh (1863); in Palingenia (A), Walsh (1862).

Typ. P. vittigera.

quadripunctata, Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soe. Philad. ii. 198, note 16; subim.,

9 im.

vittigera, ! Walsh; in Palingenia, Walsh.

V. Potymirarcys, Etn. (1868); in Ephemera, Ol.; Palingenia, Burm.

Typ. P. virgo.

indicus, Pict.; in Palingenia, Pict.; 2 im.

macrops, Hag.; in Palingenia, Hag.

Savignii, ! nov. sp. (Savigny, pl. ii. 5, Ephemera; in Palingenia, Pict.; not

described).

virgo, Ol.; in Ephemera, Ol.; Palingenia, Pict.

XI. Poramantuvs, Pict. (1843-5); restricted, Etn. (1868); in Ephemera,

auct.—Typ. P. luteus.

eneus, Pict. Ephem. 229, pl. xxxiii.; Walk. Cat. 545=Ephemerella, 9 im.

annulatus, Hag. Ceyl. Syn. i. 476= Leptophlebia, 3.

apicatlis, Ste., in Hphemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 236; Walk. Cat. 544 =

Ephemerella ignita, g im.

brunneus, Pict. Ephem. 217, pl. xxvii.; Walk. Cat. 542 = Leptophlebia

fusca.

castaneus, Pict. Ephem. 215, pl. xxvi. 4,5; Walk. Cat.542=Leptophlebia,

9 im.

cinctus, Retz., in Ephemera, Retz.; Pict. Ephem. 219, pl. xxviii. (excl. 5) ;

Walk. Cat. 543; Brau. N. Aust. 27; Hag. Brit. Syn. 20; Ausser.

Neur. Tirol. 137= Leptophlebia.

concinnus,! Walk., in Palingenia, Walk.; Hag. Am. Syn. 51=Lepto-

phlebia cwpida, g im.

costalis, Burm., in Baetis, Burm.; Pict. Ephem. 237; Walk. Cat. 546 =

Leptophlebia, subim.

cupidus, Say, in Ephemera, Say; Hag. Am. Syn. 51; Walsh, Proc. Acad.

Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 372, & Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 172,

189, 194, notes 14, 15= Leptophlebia.

dilutus, Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Walk. Cat. 545; Hag. Brit. Syn. 19;

[misprinted dilectus, Pict. Ephem. 236] =EHphemerella ignita.

dispar, ! Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 234; Walk. Cat. 542=

Leptophlebia helvipes, g im.

erythrophthalinus, Schr., in Ephemera, Schr.; Pict. Ephem. 222, pl. xxix.

(misprinted erythrocephalus) aquat., pl.xxx.; Walk. Cat.

544; Hag. Brit. Syn. 21=Hphemerella ignita.

exspectans, ! Walk. Trans. Ent. Soc. N.S. v. 198= Ephemera, 2 subim.

fasciatus, ! Hag. Ceyl. Syn. i. 476= Ephemera.

femoralis, Hag. loc. cit.= Leptophlebia.

Ferreri, Pict. Ephem. 203, pl. xxv. 1; Walk. Cat. 539; ¢ im.

fuscus, Curt., in Ephemera, Curt.; Pict. Ephem. 235; Walk. Cat. 543;

Hag. Brit. Syn. 19= Leptophlebia. }

Geerii, Pict. Ephem. 211, pl. xxvi. 1-8; Walk. Cat. 541; Brau. N. Aust.

27; Hag. Brit. Syn. 18; Ausser. Neur. Tirol. 1836=Leptophlebia

helvipes.

gibbus, Pict. Ephem. 226, pl. xxxi.-xxxii. (aer.); Walk. Cat. 544=Ephe-

merella.

halteratus, Fab., in Ephemera, Fab.; Pict. Ephem. 236; Walk. Cat. 546=

Leptophlebia cincta, g im.

on the Hphemeride. 37

Poramantuts (continued).

helvipes, ! Ste.,in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 2385; Walk. Cat. 543=

Leptophlebia, 2 im.

hyalinus, Zet., in Ephemera [hyalinata], Zet.; Pict. Ephem. 237= Lepto-

phlebia cincta. ,

inanis, Gmel., in Ephemera, Gmel.; Pict. Ephem. 235; Walk. Cat. 544=

Leptophlebia cincta, g im.

|| inanis, Pict. Ephem. 232, pl. xxiv. 4; Walk. Cat. 547; incerte sedis

(allied to Tricorythus) ; Gen. XIII.

Krueperi, Stein, Berl. Ent. Zeit. vii. 414= Leptophlebia ?, im.

luteus, Lin., in Ephemera, Lin.; Pict. Ephem. 205, pl. xxv. 2,3; Walk.

Cat. 539; Hag. Stet. Ent. Zeit. xxvi. 229.

marginatus, Lin., in Ephemera, Lin.; Hag. Brit. Syn. 17, & Stet. Ent.

Zeit. xxvi. 229= Leptophlebia.

{ marginatus, Pict. Ephem. 208, pl. xxv. 4, 5; Walk. Cat. 540; ? Oul.

1867, p. 27= Leptophlebia Picteti.

minor, ! Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 237; Walk. Cat. 546=

Leptophlebia fusca, @ im.

modestus, ! Hag. An. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1864, p. 89= Leptophlebia.

nebulosus, ! Walk., in Palingenia, Walk.; Hag. Am. Syn. 52; Walsh,

Proc. Ent. Soc. Philad. ii. 193, note 13, 194, note 15= Lepto-

phlebia, g im.

odonatus, Walsh, Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philad. 1862, p. 372, & Proc. Ent.

Soe. Philad. ii. 171=nebulosus, g im.

priscus, Pict. Trait. d. Paleont. II. ii. 871; Hag. Verh. zool.-bot. Ver.

Wien, 1854, p. 227; Pict. & Hag. Org. Reste im Bernst. ii. 77, pl.

vi. 3, b= Leptophlebia.

roseus, Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 236; Walk. Cat. 545=

Ephemerella ignita, im.

stigma, ! Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 235; Walk. Cat. 541=

Leptophlebia marginata, g im.

submarginatus, ! Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 236; Walk. Cat.

545=Leptophlebia helvipes, 2 im.

talcosus, ! Ste., in Ephemera, Ste.; Pict. Ephem. 234; Walk. Cat. 541=

Leptophlebia marginata, 2 im.

+ Sempuis, Pz. Expl. Schef. Ic.

t marginata, Pz. op. cit. Ie. eciv.= Palingenia longicauda.

XXI. Srpsuvurvus, Etn. (1868) [mis-spelt Siphlonwrus] ; in Baetis,

Say; Ephemera, Zet.; Palingenia, Walk. Typ. S. flavidus.

alternatus, Say ; in Baetis, Say; Baetis (A), Walsh.

annulatus,! Walk; in Baetis, Walk.

? aridus, Say; in Baetis, Say ; Baetis (B), Walsh.

armatus, ! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p.6; g¢ im.

bicolor, ! Walk.; in Palingenia, Walk.

? debilis, Walsh; in Baetis (C), Walsh.

femoratus, Say; in Baetis, Say; Baetis (A), Walsh.

jlavidus, ! Ed. Pict.; in Baetis, Ed. Pict.

lacustris, ! Etn. Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 7.

Linneanus,! nov. sp.; fo im.

? siccus, Walsh; in Baetis (B), Walsh.

XIV. Tricoryruus, Etn. (1868); in Ephemera, Savigny; Cenis, Pict.

varicauda, Pict., (Savigny, pl. ii. 6, 7); in Canis, Pict.

38 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Fossil Hphemeride.

The oldest known fossil of this Family has been dis-

covered in the Solenhofen slate. It is a fragment of a

wing [Pl. I. fig. 10] and is in the British Museum. The

best preserved of the extinct Ephemeride are those found

in Stettin Amber. These species are such as would be

likely to occur in a large river. They differ but slightly

from extant species, and some of them are referable to

recent Huropean genera.

Many remains of insects from formations older than

the Tertiary have been referred to the Hphemeride, but

with doubtful accuracy. The following works contain

notices of such fossils.

1845. Brodie’s History of Fossil Insects, p. 127, pl. x. 4. [The actual

specimen is in the British Museum; it exhibits an affinity to the Plani-

pennia. |

1856. F. Goldenburg, in Dunker & Meyer’s Paleontographica, iv.

33-5, pl. ii. 5 & vi. 5, 6, described and figured three species of a genus

Dictyoneura.

[I consider this genus not to belong to the Ephemeride, because the

subcosta ends abruptly at the nodus in the anterior wing; and because

the thickened basal veinlet is absent. Dr. Dohrn ranks it with Eugereon.]

1861. H.A. Hagen, in Meyer’s Paleontogr. x. 115-118, pl. xv. 2, 3, 5,

described and figured Ephemera cellulosa, E. ? procera, and HE. mortua,

together with E. prisca (Syn. Sciaria prisca, Germar, Noy. Act. Leopold.

xix. 211-212, pl. xxiii. 11; Id., Giebel, Insect. d. Vorwelt, p. 230; Deutschl.

Petrefakt, p. 640). [Cellulosa and procera have since been referred to

Dictyoneura. It is impossible to determine the nature of the others,

from the figures. ]

1864. J.D. Dana, in Silliman’s American Journal of Science, xxxvii.

34, described the genera Miamia and Hemeristia.

[In 1866, Mr. 8S. H. Scudder erected a Family Paleopterina for these.

Dr. Brauer, in 1866, cited them amongst the Ephemeride. Perhaps

these genera are related to the Planipennia, as Mr. M’Lachlan suggests,

or perhaps (but this is hardly probable) to Dictyoneura.}

1868. Dr. A. Dohrn, in Meyer’s Paleontogr., gave a figure and de-

scription of Hugereon Beckingii. [He referred it to the same group as

Dictyoneura. Dr. Brauer, in the same year, ranked it amongst the

Ephemeride. The condition of the mouth-organs clearly separates it

from the Ephemeride; and the neuration of the wings favours Dr. Dohrn’s

determination of its relationship. ] :

1867. J. W. Dawson, in the Geological Magazine, iv. 385-388, pl. xvii.

1-5, described and figured Haplophlebium Barnesii, Platephemera antiqua,

Homothetus fossilis, and Xenoneura antiquorum. [They have all been

regarded as allies of the Ephemeride. Haplophlebium, however, on

account of the well-marked nodus in the fore-wing, and the character of

the reticulation between the principal longitudinal nervures is, I think,

related to Dictyoneura and Eugereon: Platephemera and Homothetus may

possibly be of the Ephemeride, but there is nothing in the figures to make

this certain: and there is no reason for considering that Xenoneura be-

longs to this Family.]

on the Ephemeride. 39

1868. §S. H. Scudder, in Geol. Mag. v. 175-7, and 218-19, catalogued

three genera in addition to those of Prof. Dawson’s paper. [‘‘ Gerephe-

mera simplea is represented by a slight fragment of the tip of a wing; the

wing must have been large and broad; the veins distant, weak and simple.

It is apparently a member of the family Ephemerina.” Platephemera an-

tiqua is referred to the same family, although the base of the wing is

wanting, as well as apiece of the tip. A fragment of what is ‘‘ probably ”

a portion from the middle of a wing is named Dyscritius vetustus, not-

withstanding that ‘it is impossible to determine” from it “either the

approximate size of the insect, or the family to which it belongs.” Li-

thentomum Hartii is also described. Mr. Scudder correctly observes at p.

218, that Palephemera medicva, Hitchcock (previously named Mormolu-

coides antiquorum, Hitchcock) is not a nymph of an Ephemerid]}.

1868. §.H. Scudder described, in the Paleontology of Illinois, p. 571-2,

figs. 8-10, a genus Ewphemerites with two species, HE. gigas and afjinis,

which he ranks among the Ephemeride.

Paleeontologists have adopted a ridiculous course with

regard to some insect fossils. -Whenever an obscure

fragment of a well-reticulate insect’s wing is found in a

rock, a genus is straightway set up, and the fossil named

as a new species. The species is then referred to the

Lphemeride, and is immediately pronounced to be a syn-

thetic type of insects at present distantly related to one

another in organization. This enunciation of synthetic

types is often nothing less than a resort to random con-

jecture respecting the affinities of animals which the

writer is at a loss to classify. An insect allied to the

Hphemeride which chirped like a Locust (such as Xeno-

newra is imagined to have been), is a tolerable sample of

these synthetic types.

When a fossil comprises only a fragment, or even a

complete wing of an Ephemerid, it is hardly possible to

determine the genus, and impossible to assert the species.

The utmost that can be learned from such a specimen is

the approximate relations of the insect. Neuration by

itself is not sufficient to define the species or even the

genera of recent Hphemeride.

The following list contains the names of the fossils

hitherto reputed Hphemeride upon questionable grounds.

I shall take no further notice of them.

Genus DicryonreuRA, Goldenb. 1856.

anthracophila, Goldenb. 1856.

cellulosa, Hag. 1861.

Humboldtiana, Goldenb. 1856.

libelluloides, Goldenb. 1856.

procera, Hag. 1861.

40 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Genus Dyscritivs, Scud. 1868.

vetustus, Scud. 1868.

Genus Epnemera, Hag. 1861; (nec Lin.).

cellulosa, Hag. 1861=Dictyonewra.

? mortua, Hag. 1861; incerte sedis.

prisca, Germar, Hag. 1861; vide Sciaria.

procera, Hag. 1861= Dictyonewra.

Genus EvcErreon, Dohrn.

Beckingii, Dohrn, 1868.

Genus Epuemenires, Geinitz, Hag. 1865; in Leonhard & Geinitz, Jahrb.

f. Mineral. &c., 1865, p. 385 [Brauer].

Genus HuPHEMERITES, Scud. 1868.

affivis, Scud. 1868.

gigas, Scud. 1868.

Genus GEREPHEMERA, Scud. 1868.

simplex, Scud. 1868.

Genus HapLopHuesium, Dawson, 1867.

Barnesii, Dawson, 1867.

Genus HemertstiA, Scud. 1864.

Brownsoni, Scud. 1864.

Genus Homornetus, Dawson, 1867.

fossilis, Dawson, 1867.

Genus LirHentomum, Scud. 1868.

Hartii, Scud. 1868.

Genus Miamta, Scud. 1864.

Brownsom, Seud. 1864.

Genus Mormo.vucoipss, Hitehcock.

antiquorum, Hitchcock.

Genus PatErHEemeERA, Hitchcock= Mormotucoides.

medieva, Hitchcock=M. antiquorwm.

Genus PLaTEpHEMERA, Dawson, 1867.

antiqua, Dawson, 1867.

Genus Sctar1a, Germar.

prisca, Germar ; cf. Ephemera, Hag.; incerte sedis.

Genus XENONEURA, Dawson, 1867.

antiquorum, Dawson, 1867.

on the Ephemeride. 41

Family HPHEMERIDAi.

(ArxipTerA, Brullé; Anisoprera, Stephens).

The Ephemeride are hexapod insects which have many-

jointed caudal setee; which carry their fore-wings erect

and unfolded; and which in the imago have abortive

mouth organs.

Antenne aristate; the basal two joints the largest, the

bristle many-jointed. Ocelli three. Oculi compound or

complex. Legs slender, the anterior pair the longest;

tarsi distinctly jomted, terminated by claws. Anter-

ior wings large, creased lengthwise, but never folded

together ; costa united by a stout cross-veimlet to the

radius near the base of the wing; subcosta uninterrupted

at the nodus. Posterior wings sometimes absent, some-

times rudimentary, at the utmost small. Abdomen ten-

jomted: the first abdominal segment joimed immoveably

to the metathorax ; the ninth provided in the male with

a pair of abdominal legs in the form of claspers (forceps) ;

the tenth bearing (two at the fewest, three at the most)

multiarticulate caudal sete, which are used as balancers ;

the alimentary canal straight, apparently destitute of

salivary glands, and inflated with gas; many short ex-

cretory tubules are appended to the large intestine ; the

penis is situate at the apex of the ninth segment, and

is either hidden or exposed ; the oviducts terminate in

the joining of the eighth and seventh segments,

In coition, the male flies under the female and seizes

her prothorax with his elongate anterior legs, simulta-

_ neously bending the tip of his abdomen upwards and

forwards, and clasping the proper segment of her body

with his forceps. During their connexion, which is of

brief duration, the pair are chiefly supported by the female,

and they gradually descend slowly in the air, sometimes

even to the ground. When they separate, the male

rejoins his companions. The female retires to the water,

and deposits the eggs impregnated, settling again and

again upon the surface of the water with extended setzx,

until the extruded eggs become detached from the rest.

This done, she, in some genera, returns to the general

assembly, and “pairs again, and then again deposits

eggs ; and so on, until all the eggs are disposed of: thus

the same female may be served by several males; and like-

wise the same male may frequently serve several females,

42 Rev. A. HE. Eaton’s Monograph

not being exhausted by one union. But in other genera,

the coitus once consummated, the eggs are deposited in

one mass altogether.

The egg laid in the water, after some time develops

into a nymph, which at first has only the two outer

caudal sete, and respires through the integument at

large. But, subsequently, when the nymph increases in

bulk, special breathing organs grow out from the pos-

tero-lateral region of some of the abdominal segments,

as well as from the hinder segments of the thorax.

These are usually lamellar in form, and nearly always

external. The thoracic out-growths persist as the wings ;

those belonging to the abdominal segments are deci-

duous with the integument, and they are not reproduced

after the insect emerges from the water as the sub-imago. *

A cloaca at the end of the intestine is a supplementary

breathing organ. From the tenth segment, between the

two setee first formed, a third seta grows, which in some

genera is afterwards cast off at the same time as the

mouth-organs, and the gills. The tarsi are jointless,

and end in a moveable claw. The food of the insect is

obtained from the large quantities of mud which it

swallows.

The adult nymph sometimes floats on the surface of the

water, with the dorsum of the thorax exposed to the air,

buoyed up by gas which at that time accumulates be-

tween the old and the young integuments, and in the /

emptied alimentary canal: and sometimes it crawls a

short distance out of the water. In either case, the,

thorax opens along the middle dorsal suture. Through

this opening the subimago extricates its head and fore-

legs from the old skin: the wings suddenly expand fully ;

the hinder legs are freed, and then the insect creeps out,

and flies heavily to some convenient resting place, where

on alighting it assumes the posture characteristic of its

genus. In some genera, the subimago is the permanent

aerial state of the female; in most cases, however, the

subimaginal pellicle is cast sooner or later, according to

the temperature of the air and the habit of the genus.

The dingy appearance of the subimago, the comparative

shortness of its sete and tarsi, and the ciliate terminal

border of the wings, nearly always distinguish it from the

imago.

8 The term “ pseudimago” used by some authors is spurious, and ‘ sub-

imago”’ has precedence over “ pro-imago.”’

on the Bphemeride. 43

It is well known that, in some genera, differences be-

tween the sexes are apparent in the oculi, setz, and

tarsi. The oculi are always smaliest in the female, and

in the male are sometimes divided into two parts. The

female usually has shorter sete than the male. The

middle seta is often shorter than the two outer setz, or

altogether absent. Sometimes the male wants the middle

seta, whilst the female has it equal to, or only shorter

than, the others; frequently neither sex possesses the

central seta. The proportions of the tarsal joints of the

male are not the same as those of the female; and his

anterior legs exceed hers in length.

The composition of the abdomen of Hphemeride has

been the subject of much dispute. Some consider it to

be ten-jointed, others reckon nine joints. The ‘tenth

joint” throughout this paper means the dorsal arcus

immediately above the sete, the part from which the

setze proceed, and the ventral arc often formed of two

valve-like pieces under the anus—the intermediate appen-

dices of M. Pictet. The ninth joint is that which bears

the forceps in the male, and which, in the female, is

sometimes prolonged behind into a broad lobe beneath,

concealing the tenth joint. This lamina has been mis-

taken for the egg-valve in some species. The eighth

joint is the first posterior to the opening of the oviducts.

From the apical edge of the seventhjoint, beneath, the egg-

valve grows out. The next five segments are not pecu-

har in point of structure. The first jot is immoveably

united with the metathorax, and often resembles it in

colour. Hence certain Entomologists have reckoned

, this joint a part of the thoracic region. That this joint

belongs to the abdomen may, however, be demonstrated

in the nymphs of some genera, in which it is furnished

with a moveable pair of branchial plates. Now the

branchial out-growths of the thorax are always fixtures

in the nymph. In certain four-winged genera, those

branchial plates of the first segment are present, and may

be contrasted with the rudimentary hind-wings.

In drying, the colour and form of Hphemeride soon

change. Colour is of little importance, even in fresh

examples; but form is necessary to the distinguishing

of the species. They are, therefore, best preserved in a

hquid. It is sufficient for ordinary purposes, to dip the

freshly-killed specimen into dilute spirits, and then

44 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

transfer it to a tube, or homceopathic globule bottle,

partly filled with water. Next, Price’s glycerine is added

to the water,—one or two drops a day,—until the bottle

is gradually filled. A small drop of acetic acid may be

added finally, to prevent the growth of mould. The

name of the species may be written on the disk of the

cork, the date and locality of capture round its side.

Hind-wings of the species of Baetis and Centroptiluin

should be mounted on slips of glass, for microscopical

examination. Pinned specimens are often difficult to

determine, in consequence of their shrinking ; to card

them is to render them fit for nothing.

GENERUM DISTRIBUTIO GEOGRAPHICA.

Symbola ( ) species fossiles, [ ] nondescriptas, claudunt.

Europa. |America.| Asia. | Africa. Peay Oceania.

Oligoneuria ...... yy 1 0 iL 0 0

Lachlania ......../ 0 1 0 0 1) 0)

Campsurus......... 0) 6 0 (0) 0) 0)

Asthenopus ........ 0 2+/1) |0 0 0 0

Polymitarcys...... 1+ (1) | 0 1+-[2] | 1-+- (1) 0) 0)

Palingenia ......... i @) 1 (0) 0) 0)

Pentagenia......... 0) 2 0 0 0 0

Hexagenia ........| O 5 [j 0 0) 0

Euthyplocia ...... 0 il 0 0 0 to)

Ephemera ......... 4 3+[1] | 4 0 0 0)

Potamanthus .....| 2 0 0 0) @) 0)

Leptophlebia I ...| 0 0 3 2 9 0

3 IA) gaa} © 1 a) 0 ) 0

oy UNE Seal Ze S| 0 0) 0 0

ay | ANY cool © 2 0 0 @) 0)

*) Waal 24 0 0 0 0 0)

Genus [XIII] ...... 0 il 0 0 0 0

Tricorythus ....... 0 0 0 i 0 0

(OER) cognossobodacaa 6 2 il 1 0) 0

Kphemerella ...... 3 2 0 0 0 0)

Beetiscaeecussoteres 0 1 0) @) 0 0

C@llocons.carecmecese 5 4, 1+(1]|1 [1] 0

Centroptilum,,...| 4 1 0) 0) 8) (0)

IBEN=) tS) nqoooasgo90000C 16 13+-[2}/ 1 +f) / (4) [2] 0

Silallviets) Goosnoncc 3-+[2] | 7? 0 0 0 0

Genus [XXII].....| 0 0 5 0 0 0

Isonychia ......... 0 1+?1 |0 0 (0) 0)

Coloburus ......... 0 0 0) 0 2 0

(Cronicus) ......... (1) 0 0) 0 0 0

2 0 te) 2

Heptagenia ...... 20 16

on the Ephemeride.

SPECIERUM DISTRIBUTIO GEOGRAPHICA.

Symbola () species fossiles, [ ] ambigue definitas, claudunt.

Oligoneuria anomala

”

Lachlania

Campsurus

rhenana

[pallida]

Trimeniana

abnormis .

latipennis .

albifilum .

albicans

cuspidatus

quadridentatus .

[puella]

Asthenopus curtus

”

dorsalis

Polymitareys virgo

Palingenia

Pentagenia

”

Hexagenia

Savignii

indicus

(macrops)

longicauda

lata .

vittigera

quadripunctata .

albivitta

[atrostoma]

(decolorata]

limbata

bilineata .

Euthyplocia Hecuba

liphemera vulgata

”

guttulata .

flaveola

(myops]

lineata

danica

glaucops

immaculata

exspectans

fasciata

serica

Potamanthus luteus

”

Ferreri

Rio Janeiro.

Germany ; Turin.

Hungary.

Umroti District, Natal.

Cuba.

Para.

Brazil.

Guatemala,

Santarem, Brazil.

New Orleans.

Para.

Brazil.

France; Germany; Madrid.

The Nile.

Hindostan.

Fossil in Amber.

Central Europe ; Caucasus.

Silhet; Sarawak.

Illinois; Texas.

Illinois.

The Amazons; Texas.

Brazil.

Matamoras; Tamaulipas.

Texas; Illinois; Maryland.

Hudson’s Bay Ter.; Canada;

Mexico ; Hlinois.

Vera Cruz; Mexico; Veragua.

Texas ;

Northern & Central Europe.

Albany River ; Canada; Northern United

States.

Illinois; New York.

Illinois.

S. England; France; Switzerland.

Northern & Central Europe & Spain.

Moscow ; Germany ; Switzerland; North

Ttaly.

Cuna, Hindostan.

Hindostan.

Ceylon; Masuri, North India.

North China.

England; France; Germany.

Turin.

Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Leptophlebia australis .

Gen. XIII.

australasica

furcifera

inconspicua

dentata

strigata

{costalis] . A

nodularis . :

scita

Taprobanes

annulata .

femoralis .

dislocans . ;

auriculata.

Colombie .

marginata.

helvipes .

castanea

Krueperi .

Picteti ; 0

(prisca) .

cincta

vespertina.

mollis

cupida

nebulosa .

fusca

modesta

inanis i

Tricorythus varicauda .

Ceenis

+P)

macrura .

chironomiformis

dimidiata .

diminuta .

hilaris ; fi

perpusilla . :

[discolor] .

Ephemerella ignita . d

Betisca

Cloeon

LP)

[argentata]

[oophora]

luctuosa . .

gibba C

eenea. : 5

invaria . $

{consimilis]

obesa ‘ 5

dipterum .

simile ‘

[subinfuscatum]

Tasmania.

Sidney ; (Moreton Bay ?).

Melbourne ?

Adelaide.

New Zealand.

North Australia.

New Holland.

Christ Church, New Zealand.

New Zealand.

Ceylon.

Rainbodde, Ceylon.

Cape of Good Hope.

British Colombia.

Temperate & Arctic Europe & America.

Gt. Britain; Germany; Switzerland.

Villeneuve, Vaud.

Greece.

Geneva.

Fossil in Amber.

Northern & Temperate Europe.

Scandinavia.

West Farms, New York.

Nova Scotia; Cincinnati; Washington.

Albany River ; Illinois.

Gt. Britain ; Switzerland.

Carinthia ; Corsica.

Brazil.

Upper Egypt.

Temperate Europe. ]

England; Prussia; Geneva. ff

Temperate Europe. ;

E. Florida. {

Indiana.

Ceylon.

Cape of Good Hope.

Sicily.

Sardinia.

England; Berlin; L. of Thun.

Temperate Europe; Madrid.

Villeneuve, Vaud.

Mt. Saléve, Geneva.

Nova Scotia; Illinois.

Illinois.

Illinois; Indiana; Upper California.

Europe; the Madeiras; Egypt.

England.

Provence.

on the Ephemeride.

[obscurum]

russulum .

mendax

dubium

vicinum

vitripennis

Centroptilum luteolum

pennulatum

lituratum .

stenopteryx

binoculatus .

debilis

scambus .

finitimus .

atrebatinus

Rhodani

pheeops

tenax

buceratus .

amnicus

alpinus.

melanonyx

pumilus

niger.

[culiciformis]

[speciosus ]

fuscus

posticatus .

unicolor .

propinquus

[verticis] .

pygmeus .

fluctuans .

pictus fj

undatus

fasciatus

ferrugineus

[albus] .

[Ephoron leukon]

flavidus .

armatus .

lacustris .

Linnzanus

annulatus .

[bicolor] .

femoratus .

alternatus .

aridus :

France; near Paris ?

Europe ; North China.

Illinois.

Tllinois.

Washington.

Chili.

Alten; Temperate Europe.

England.

Mt. Saléve, Geneva.

Carinthia.

Temperate & Arctic Europe ; Hudson’s

Bay Territory.

Hindostan.

England.

Val Montjoie.

England.

Temperate Europe ; the Madeiras.

England.

Mt. Blane District.

Mt. Brevent, Val de Chamounix.

Val d’Entremont; Faucigny.

Temperate Europe; Madrid; Corsica.

England; ? Sweden. .

Sweden.

incog. (Europe).

Messina.

Shippingport.

Tlinois; Washington; ? Porto Rico.

Ilinois.

Indiana.

The 8S. Lawrence.

Ilinois.

Texas.

Red River ; New York; Mexico.

Brazil.

Illinois.

Winnepeek River.

Belville on the Passaick.

Spain.

Treland; England.

Wales.

incog.

Trenton Falls, New York.

Albany River.

Illinois ; Olio.

Illinois; 8S. Peter’s River; Washington.

Illinois ; Indiana.

48 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Siphlurus? siccus ‘ j Tllinois.

pe debilis 5 0 Tllinois.

Gen. XXII. [tristis] . : Rainbodde, Ceylon.

as [econsueta ] ° Rainbodde.

op {solida] . é Rainbodde.

» (signata] . : Rainbodde.

» {marginalis] . Rainbodde.

Isonychia manca : C Texas.

op [ignota] . : ? United States.

Coloburus humeralis . Otago, New Zealand.

5p haleuticus . : ? Melbourne.

(Cronicus anomalus) . Fossil in Amber.

Heptagenia semicolorata . Gt. Britain; Switzerland; Austria.

> [semitincta] . Versoix, Lake Leman.

of nivata : Mt. Blane District.

4s borealis . 9 Finmark.

.s canadensis : Canada.

ar fusca 5 ; Albany River.

Hy cupulata . : N. China.

“5 basalis . 5 Lake Winnipeg.

- maculipennis . Illinois; New York.

x eruentata . : Illinois.

5) simplex . ; Tllinois.

3 pulchella . : Illinois.

x [terminata] : Illinois.

oF interpunctata . Illinois ; Indiana.

99 flavescens . : Tlinois.

rs vitrea : ; Albany River.

+ [nigrimana] . France.

%) flavipennis : England; France; Switzerland.

i elegans . : Temperate Europe; Hammerfest.

4p flUminum . ; Germany; Lake Leman.

>" sylvicola . : Spain.

‘s volitans . ; England.

* alpicola . : Mt. Blane District ; Carinthia.

= iridana . ; Altvater.

3 {annulifera] . Hindostan.

5 luridipennis . Albany River; S. Lawrence.

a flaveola . , Tennessee; West Farms, New York.

0 vicaria . . Canada.

me [tessellata, Hag.] Puget Sound; Washington.

5 venosa . : Scandinavia; Corsica; and Temperate

Europe.

As longicauda . Gt. Britain. :

> [angustipennis] Madrid.

_ Picteti . ; Tessin; Ober Engadine.

3 insignis . f England.

+ montana . 3 Mt. Brevent ; Austria.

5 lateralis . ;: England, Wales; Carinthia; ? L. Leman;

Spain.

oP [Bellieri] . ‘ Sicily.

on the Hphemeride. 4.9

Heptagenia zebrata.. : Corsica.

is [gemmata] : “Circa aqueductum Fodinarum Idren-

sium.”’

PA guttata . : Valdivia, Chili.

5 torrida . e Philippine Isles.

aS determinata . Java.

Thus, the number of described recent species of Hphe-

meride is about 178, exclusive of ten which are either

hardly determinable, or probably mere conditions of well-

characterised forms which have been otherwise named.

There are three fossil species determinable.

EPHEMERIDARUM GENERUM RECENTIUM SUMMA ANALYTICA.

Metathoracic wings present

Metathoracie wings wanting

3 long subequal caudal sete

Cloeon, Pl. IL. f. 7.

Cross-veinlets of wings numerous towards the anterior margin;

Gen. XII; Tricorythus, Pl. II. f. 3.

Cross-veinlets of wings disposed in very few transverse rows ;

Cenis, Pl. II. f. 4.

Longitudinal neuration of posterior wings considerably complex

Longitudinal neuration of posterior wings ee Cs 23. pect

nervures only)

Lateral margins of the hinder abdominal segments produced

into a slender subulate process on each side; Lachlania,

Pl. I. f. 1; Oligoneuria, P11. f. 2.

Posterior wings very narrow ; Centroptilum, Pl. II. f. 8.

Il. f. 9, Pl. Il. £.

Posterior pairs of legs well developed

a Posterior pairs of legs very short and feeble .

Cross-veinlets in the marginal area before the nodus of the an-

terior wing, few and indistinct

Cross-veinlets in marginal area before the nodus of anterior

wing, numerous and well defined; Polymitarcys, P1.I. f. 5.

Terminal margin of anterior wing free from cross-yeinlets ;

Campsurus, Pl. I. f. 4

Terminal margin of anterior wing here and there met by cross-

Lateral margins of the hinder abdominal segments simple

veinlets; Asthenopus, Pl. I. f. 3

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT I, (MARCH.)

2 long caudal sete; the third rejected ; Gen. “XXII. 993

Posterior wings ee obtuse ; Gen, XXTT. 9° 2s Baetisy PI.

50 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Oculi even in both sexes . 14

102 Oculi in ¢ ae polapholes WslOey "intersected by a slightly i im-

pressed line. “ 11

Penultimate segment in beneath prtonged into a short

iBT lamellar process ; . .

Penultimate segment in 9 beneath simple ; Potamanthus,

1PAL, OT 3% Ie

Proximal joint of leg of forceps of ¢ short . 13

122 Proximal joint of leg of forceps of ¢ the longest ; Gen. OMe

B23 - Leptophlebia, Piet) 2-2:

13 Hinder tarsi 4-jointed; Ephemerella, Pl. I. f. 5.

Hinder tarsi 5-jointed; Coloburus, Pl. III. f. 3.

Penultimate segment in § beneath prolonged into a short

14 lamellar process . : : ;

Penultimate segment in 9 beneath simple c : : 16

Cross-veinlets crowded, indistinct ; Botisca, Pl. IT. f. 6.

1} Cross-veinlets regular, well-defined ; Tsonychia, Pl. IIT. f. 4;

Heptagenia, Pl. III. f. 5.

16 3 long caudal sete . < ‘ : : : . P - ey

2 long caudal setz : : : : ; ; : 5 18

Cross-veinlets crowded, well-defined ; Huthyplocia, 2 , Pl. 1.f.8.

172 Cross-veinlets regular, well-defined ; Pentagenia, 2, Pl.1. f£. 6;

Ephemera, Pl. I. f. 9.

18 { Hinder tarsi 5-jointed ; ne Tk IML, 1, PA,

Hinder tarsi 4-jointed .. : 5 » ws |

Middle seta very short; Pentagenia, g, PILI. £6; Hexagenia,

19 TEMG Te a Pc

Middle seta rejected ; Palingenia. |

Materials for a complete analysis of the genera of the

Hphemeride are not at hand. Of some, only one sex is —

at present known: jof others, only mutilated specimen

deprived of legs, or examples with the legs shrivelled up

in drying, so as to prevent their proportions being made

out, are in Huropean collections. Our grounds for

establishing comparisons between the genera are conse-

quently very limited.

In determining from the imago the affinities of a genus,

the principal points to be noted are,—First, the neura-

tion of the anterior wing; Secondly, the structure of the

hinder pairs of legs ; and, Thirdly, sexual peculiarities. _

In the neuration of the anterior wing, the most im-

portant features are the disposition of the nervures dis-

‘

on the Hphemeride. : 51

tributed to the inner and terminal margins. It should

be noted whether the longitudinal neuration is sparse

and simple, or plentiful and complex: next, whether the

eross-veinlets are scanty or numerous (especially in the

costal and subcostal areas -before the nodi) : and then,

whether the interneural veinlets of the terminal margin

(if there be any of them) are derived from the longitu-

dinal nervures, or from the cross-veinlets, or from the

terminal margin only; and if they are only from the

margin, it should be ascertained whether they are soli-

tary or in pairs. Minute details of neuration are value-

less ; only the general aspect or style of the neuration

need be studied.

In the hinder pairs of legs, the length of the tibie, as

compared with the femora, should be noted; then the

number of the tarsal joints, and the form of the wngues.

If a fifth joint is present in the ¢arsus, its joining with

the tibia may be obliterated, or indistinct, or clearly

defined.

As to the sexual peculiarities, it is important to examine

first the oculi. Do the oculi of the male differ from those

of the female in size only? or are they also divided into

two parts? If they are divided, it must be ascertained

whether the divisions are only ascalaphoid (as in Lepto-

phlebia), or whether the upper part is elevated into a

turbinate protuberance (as in Baetis). Next the forceps

should be examined. Are the legs of the forceps sessile

(as in Baetis) ? or are they inserted upon a lamellar ex-

pictision of the penultimate segment (as in Siphlurus)?

‘What are the relative proportions of their joints? It is

lso very important to note whether the female has or

jhas not a lamellar extension of the ventral margin of the

‘apex of the penultimate segment.- Next the sete should

be examined. Are their joints long, or short? Have

‘they long or short pubescence towards their tips? Is

the middle seta as long as the others in both sexes? or

abbreviated in both, or rejected in both? Or is it re-

jected by, or abbreviated in, the male only? Then it

should be noted whether the anterior legs of the male

have the femora unusually short, or not; and whether

the anterior legs of the female are well developed or

rudimentary. It should be ascertained also whether the

eggs are extruded all at once, or not.

52 Rev. A. EH. Haton’s Monograph

Last of all, the form and neuration of the posterior

wings (if there be any) should be taken into considera-

tion.

The abdomen may further be examined as to the mode

in which the last segment is finished off beneath;

whether by a simple membrane, or by plate-like folds of

the integument beneath the insertion of the sete (as in

Hphemera and Baetis). In Lachlania, Oligoneuria, and -

Cenis, the posterior segments are furnished at the tip.

with slender lateral processes; on account of this and

other reasons (e.g., the structure of the sete), I am in-

clined to consider the first two genera to be allied to

Cenis more closely than might be inferred from the

arrangement of the genera adopted by me. Heptagenia

is the only genus known which possesses a true egg-

valve.

In the immature insect, the attitude assumed by the

subimago during repose is of value in classification. The

points to be noted are whether it elevates the anterior —

legs, or not. If it does, are they held together, or

separated ? Are the wings spread abroad, or held up- —

right? Are the caudal sete laid together, or separated? —

The average duration of the subimago stage should also

be taken into consideration. Does it last only a few

minutes, or an hour or two, or a whole day, or longer?

or is it the permanent state of the female ? |

In the nymph, the habit of the insect is of first import- ji

ance. Does it burrow, or creep? or does it run and

swim actively? These points can be inferred from the

structure of its mandibles, lees (especially the anterior’

legs), sete, and antenne. Next in importance is thy

structure of the branchial organs. Are they lamince

fringed with short slender processes ? and, if so, are they

simple (as in Cenis), or compound lamine (as i |

Hphemera)? Or are the lamine fringeless? If so, are\

the lamine simple (as in Baetis), or compound (as im

Cloeon), or complex (as in Hphemerella)? or are they

furnished at the base with a fascicle of branchial filaments |

(as in Heptagenia)? Betisca has the branchie concealed

under an extension of the dorsum of the thorax. The

labium, with the two pairs of maxillee and their palpi, have

next to be considered. Are the palpi of the lower

maxille two-jointed, or three-jomted ? Last of all, the

number and position of the branchial organs must be noted,

on the Ephemeride. 53

and their relative sizes. In some genera there is a

minute pair of branchial processes on the first abdominal

segment, which is very liable to be overlooked. Some-

times the anterior pairs of plates differ in texture and

form from those of the segments behind them. These

last items have more to do with the determination of the

order of succession of genera closely allied to one

another, than with the determination of the position of

a genus in the family at large.

Arrangements of genera founded upon the structure

of the imago, or of the nymph, alone, can be only tem-

porary. ‘The relations of genera can be definitely ascer-

tained, only by taking into consideration all the peculiari-

ties presented by the structure of representative species

at the principal epochs in the course of their develop-

ment from the egg.

NOTANDA.

long. al.=longitudo coste ale antice.

exp. al.=explicatio alarum anticarum.

set.=longitudo setarum caudalium; e.g., sub Ephemera vulgata legitur

“ set. 33 & 34-32 & 36 mm.” i. ¢., longitudo setarum exterioris 33-32

mm., interioris 34-86 mm.

mm.=millimetres; mensurd Gallicé adhibita.

im. & subim.=imago et subimago.

Symbola descriptionibus preeposita significant,—

Vv. S.=viyum specimen.

vy. vy. Ss. = vidi specimen vivum.

8. S.=specimen siccum.

VY. 8S. 8. vidi specimen siccum.

} !=vidi specimen genuinum siccum.

* Cum terminologid doctoris Julii Miiller,* terminologia colorum una et

eadem est, preter in locis sequentibus :—

Testaceus et luridus concolores putantur.

Isabellinus, Miil,=furfurosus (Anglice, bran-colour).

Fuscus et umbrinus, Miil., similiterque olivaceus et pistazinus, Miil., con-

colores esse putantur.

Ferrugineus= Anglice, steel-blue.

Rubiginosus= Anglice, rust-red.

* Terminologia Entomologica. J. Miller. Briinn, 1860.

od Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Genus Lacubania.

(Ada, Pi, tos 1)

Lachlania, Hag. 1868.

Imago ¢. Caput transversum, ocellis subeequalibus ;

prothorax etiam transversus. Ales quatuor. Sete dua.

In dentibus segmentorum abdominis latera producuntur.

Lachlania abnormis.

L. abnormis, Hag. 1868.

imacowgrss. Sy * Fusca, subtus pallida, capite, pro-

thorace atque pedibus nigris. Alze grisee, pellucide,

crassioribus nervorum griseo-fuscis: in anticis prima,

secunda, et quarta venarum longitudinalium furcatee

sunt, et serie una ‘rasmmerieruaaisienn intersecantur ; im

posticis venarum trium longitudinalium media furcata

est, et nervi transversales absunt. Setze albidee.” (Hag.

abstract.)

Long. corp. ? 6-7, set. 5, exp. al. 18-19 mm.

Hab.—Cuba.

Dr. Hagen gives “ ovivalvula transversa” as a cha-

racter: but as he called the ventral process of the

penultimate segment of Leptophlebia an egg-valve, itis |

uncertain whether Lachlania has a true egg-valve or |

not.

Genus OLIGONEURIA.

Oligoneuria, Pict. 1843-5. (

Neuratio alarum, in hoc genere, pro singula ee

diversa est.

Imago. Oculi integri; prothorax transversus. ‘Aad

quatuor ; antice nervis longitudinalibus robustis parum

divisis, et nervis transversalibus marginem costalem so-

lum et ale apicem versus: in processti tenui hbero basis

alee anticee supra singulariter excurrit. Pedes debiles,

tibiis anticis femoribus multo longioribus ; tarsi pree-

cipue infirmi, quadri-articulati, unguibus obtusis. Abdo-

minis segmenta singula intermedia lateribus in processi

tenui utrinque producta. Sete tres equales. Pedes

forcipis maris quadri-articulati, proximo articulorum

longissimo. Ovivalvula femina caret.

on the Bphemeride. 5d

The curious species comprised in this genus appear in

considerable numbers towards evening. The males of

the extra-European species being at present unknown,

I have not separated the group, in spite of the differ-

ences of their wings. My divisions of the genus may be

tabulated as follows :—

Ale anticee radius et subcosta confluentes : nervorum

longitudinalium sequentium primus—

et tertius bifidi; secundus obsolescens bipartitus :—

O. Trimeniana :

bipartitus; secundus simplex ; tertius—

bifidus :—O. rhenana et pallida, (Pl. I. fig. 2).

simplex :—O. anomala.

Oligoneuria anomala.

O. anomala, Pict. 1843-5.

Imago ?,s.s. ‘‘ Corpus fuscum vel brunneum. Ale

pallide grisez ; antice: nervis transversalibus circa sex.

Setze longe pubescentes, pube sparsi bases versus.”

(Hag.)

Long. corp. ? 13, set. 8, exp. al. 32 mm.

Hab.—Rio Janeiro (Koll. MS.).

Oligoneuria rhenana.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 7; caput, fig. 7a.)

O. rhenana, Imh. 1852. O. anomala, pars, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale fumatie, costas versus satura-

‘ tiores. Setarum bases glabrae, apices pilosi.

) Imago, v. v. s. Oculi atri; caput et thorax lutes-

\\ centes. «© Abdomen albicans, segmentorum apices versus

ochraceo tinctum,” juncturis obscuris, et setis albis.

Pedum antici fuliginosi ; posteriores albi, femoribus cre-

taceis et unguibus obscuris. Alarum crassiores nervorum

saturate fumati.

@. Corpore lutescenti, setis glabris; et nervis

alarum albicantium lutescentibus.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. ¢ 9-12, ¢ 7-9; set. ¢ im. 15, subim.

10; set. 2 im. circa 4, subim. circa 3; exp. al. ¢ 23,

Q 28 mm.

Hab.—The large rivers of Germany; and at Turin

(Hag.). July and August. I have taken specimens

between Cologne and Bonn, in the evening, at the end

56 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

of July, on a Rhine steamer; but, unfortunately, I

neglected to make a memorandum of the posture of the

subimago; they were blown along the deck of the

steamboat helplessly, being unable to maintain their

footing.

Oligoneuria pallida.

(Genitalia, Pl. III. fig. 8. a-c; caput, fig. 8.)

O. rhenana, var. pallida, Hag. 1855.

Imago, s. s. O. rhenane similis esse videtur. Dr.

Hagen forcipem delineavit; sed figura a forcipe O.

rhenane longe discrepat.

fiong. corp. ¢ 9, 9 7; set. 3 10, 9 4; expral @

20, 9 24 mm.

Hab.—Hunegary.

I have some doubt about the correctness of Dr.

Hagen’s figure of the forceps; for the relative propor-

tions of the joints resemble those of the forceps of

Baetis or Ephemera. There is great danger of misrepre-

sentation being the utmost that one can extort from

dried specimens.

Oligoneuria Trimeniana.

(Processus ventralis penultimi segmentorum, ¢, Pl.

Terie O8.5)

O. Trimeniana, McLach. 1868.

Imago, v. s. s. ?. Caput et thorax lutei, pectore

lutescenti. Ale pellucida, venis fumato-albis. Pedes |

albicantes, femoribus furfurosis. Sete cretacez, ad junc-}

turas apices versus sub-pilose. Ovee virides.

Long. corp. ? 12, exp. al. 415 mm.

Hab.—Mapulnulo Mission Station, Umroti District,

Natal. March.

The wings have a satiny lustre.

{

Genus CAMPsuURUS.

(Ala antica, Pl. I. fig. 4.)

Ephemera, Perch. 1836; Palingenia, pars, Pict. 1843-6 ;

Campsurus, Etn. 1868.

Imago. Oculi integri. Ale quatuor, anticee reticulo

subtili. Pedes debillimi, unguibus longis tenuibus obtusis

on the Hphemeride. 57

conformibus. <4 seta media caret; pedum posteriores

brevissimi, antici longi femoribus imprimis brevissimis ;

ultimi segmentorum latera breviter producuntur. ? sete

tres equales; pedes breves debillimi (etiam antici);

ovivalvula caret.

The genus Campsurus occupies in America the posi-

tion of Polymitarcys in the Old World. Many species of

this genus are so alike in colour that it is difficult to

discover. the females. Their habitat is probably limited

to large rivers of a tolerably high temperature.

Campsurus latipennis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 10, 10a.)

Palingenia latipennis, Walk. 1853 (non var.).

Imago, v. s. s. 6 @. Thorax fusco-luteus; pro-

thorax tumescens, a fronte angustus, sulco longitudmali

medio, et foveis lateralibus, alter pone oculos subtrian-

gulari, alterdque apud coxam utrinque. Alarum anticarum

area marginalis usque ad tertiam partem ab apice fusces-

cens, nervis transversalibus tenuibus subrectis simplicibus

paucis claudentibus. Pedes antici fusci. Abdomen supra

lined elevati longitudinali media, et posterioribus seg-

mentorum fuscis; infra testaceum. Set cretacex.

hongeeorpy. 99-7; al. ¢ 8, 9 9;-set.. ¢-22imm.

Hab.—Para.

Campsurus albifilum.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 11.)

Palingenia albifilum, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thorax fusco-testaceus; prothorax

veluti in sp. preecedente. Ale pellucidz, anteriores ner-

vorum cretacei; transversales apicales arez marginalis

anticee pauci subrecti. Pedes antici fusci, coxis testaceis.

Abdomen ochraceum, setis albis ; segmentorum apicalium

quatuor, ceeterum juncture, et lez longitudinalis ele-

vate dorsalis margines, cinereo tinct. Forceps et penis

pallide lutescentes. Sete albe.

Long. corp. ¢ 12, al. 13, set. 47 mm.

Hab.—Para.

58 Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Campsurus albicans.

Ephemera albicans, Perch. 1836; Palingenia albicans,

Burm. 1859.

Imago, s.s. Prothorax lutescens, latera versus viola-

ceus; meso- et meta-thoraces fulvi. Ale anticealbicantes,

crassioribus nervorum et bases versus violaceo tincte ;

alee posticee fere in toto alba. Pedes albicantes, tibus

et femoribus anticis solum violaceis. Caput nigrum.

Abdomen pallidum, apicem versus fulvum.

Femina in Cat. Brit. Mus. descripta a mare C. albi-

cantis longe discrepat. Pro specie innominata optime

habebitur.

Long. corp. ¢ 10, exp. al. 30 mm.

Hab.—Brazil. (Perch.)

Campsurus cuspidatus, n. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. ITI. fig. 12.)

Imago, v.s. s. d. Prothorax gibbus, virescenti-mu-

rinus. Ale albee, vitrine, invarie. Abdomen supra

fumato-albidum, infra fere cretaceum.

Long. corp. ¢ 10°5, al. 11 mm.

Hab.—Guatemala. (De Selys Longchamps.)

The name cuspidatus indicates the form of the last

ventral plate.

Campsurus quadridentatus, n. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 13.)

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thorax et pedes pallide testacei.

Ale opace; antice subcostis et radiis nigricantibus. Ab-

domen ochraceum, atrescenti-umbratum, preecipue apicem

versus, et lined longitudinali media atra in segmentorum

primis sex.

Long. corp. 6 12, al. 13 mm.

Hab.—Santarem, Brazil. (Bates.) June.

Named from the form of the last ventral plate.

Campsurus puella.

Palingenia puella, Pict. 1843-5.

Imago, 2 s.s. ‘Caput et thorax lutescentes: pedes

fuscescentes, apicibus femorum pallidis. Prothorax

_on the Bphemeride. 59

tumescens, margine antico in angulo prominente pro-

ducto.”” (Pict.)

Exp. al. 9 26 mm.

Hab.—New Orleans.

It is doubtful whether this species can bere-determined.

Genus ASTHENOPUS, nov. gen.

(Ala antica, Pl. I. fig. 3.)

Palingenia, p., Walk. 1853; Campsurus (B), Htn. 1868.

Imago. Oculiintegri. Al quatuor. Pedes debiles

veluti in Campsuro. 6 Sete duz longe ; pedes forcipis

tri-articulati; prothorax transversus. ¢ Seta intermedia

brevissima, vel obsoleta.

The wing figured belongs to an undescribed species

from Texas, specimens of which are in Mr. M’Lachlan’s

collection.

Asthenopus curtus, n. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. ITI. fig. 14, 14 a b.)

Palingenia albifilum, var., Walk. 1853; P. curta, Hag.

MS. 1861; Campsurus curtus, Ktn. 1868.

Imago 3, v.s.s. Prothorax transversus piceus ; meso-

et meta-thoraces lutei. Alee antice obscurate costas versus,

nervis transversalibus areze marginalis apicis paucis, sim-

plicibus et subrectis. Pedum antici fusci; posteriores

lutei. Abdomen. supra nigricans, subtus ochraceum,

immaculatum ; segmentum singulum supra lined longitu-

dinali media, punctoque rotundato utrinque, pallidioribus.

Setze albee.

Long. corp. g 8, al. 10, set. 35 mm.

Hab.—Para.

Asthenopus dorsalis.

Palingenia dorsalis, Burm. 1839.

Imago ¢,8. 8s. Prothorax transversus, tumescens,

lutescens, maculi in medio violacei. Caput nigricans.

Ala antica nervis fuscescentibus, et margine costali vio-

60 Rey. A. H. Haton’s Monograph

laceo-fusco. Pedes antici nigricantes. Abdomen fulvo-

griseum, striga supra fusca in medio, postice quam antice

latiori. Sete albicantes. (Pict.)

Long. corp. @ 11, exp. al. 38 mm.

Hab.—Brazil. (Burm.)

Genus PoLymirarcys.

(Ala antica, Pl. I. fig. 5.)

Ephemera, p., Ol. 1791; Palingenia, p., Burm. 1839 ;

Polymitarcys, Ktn. 1868.

Imago. Oculi integri; ale quatuor; pedes debillimi,

femoribus brevissimis. 6 Forcipis pes vel quadri- vel

tri-articulatus, secundo articulorum longissimo. Setarum

media est brevissima. Ungues antici tenues, obtusi et

impares. ? caret ovivalvula, et setas tres equales habet.

Polymitarcys virgo.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 15, 15 a b.)

Bphemera virgo, 01.1791. H. marocana ?, Fab. 1793. EH.

lutea, Pz. 1804. Palingenia horaria, Burm. 1839. H. albi-

pennis, Voigt, 1840. Palin. virgo, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v. s. s. Imagine pallidior, setis pubes-

centibus.

Imago, v.s.s. 6. ‘‘Oculi atri; caput infra in fronte

atrum.’’ Prothorax testaceus; meso- et meta-thoraces

lutescentes. Ale albz; nervi transversales apicales

areee marginalis simplices et subrecti. ‘‘ Pedes albi-

cantes, femoribus anticis infra cum tibiis suis fere in toto

atris.” Abdomen cretaceum, griseo-nebulosum apicem

versus. Setze et forfex albee.

Long. corp. 6 2? 16-17; exp.al. 9 33; set. ¢ im.

23, subim. 18; set. 2? 1m. 13 mm.

Hab.—Central Europe, in large rivers (e.g., Paris,

Cologne, and Mannheim); Madrid.

The subimagines rise from the rivers in immense

numbers late in the evening, in August, and soon moult.

The species from Morocco is possibly distinct from P.

virgo.

= ‘ ee

on the Lphemeride. 61

Polymitarcys Savignii, n. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 16, 16 a.)

(Ephemera, Say.1817; Palingenia Savignyt, Pict. 1843-5.)

Imago ¢,v.s.s. Capitis vertex cinereus. Prothorax

murinus, linea longitudinali in medio atra; meso- et

meta-thoraces lutescentes. Ale albzx; antice costis et

subcostis in majore parte nigricantibus. Pedum antici

eriseo-tincti, posteriores cretacei. Abdomen cinerascens,

juncturis, lateribus, ventreque sub-ochraceis, et setis albis.

Nervi transversales apicales arez marginalis antice

simplices et subrecti.

Long. corp. 10, al. 11 mm.

Hab.—The Nile.

M. E. Pictet has several specimens of this species.

Polynvitarcys indicus.

Palingenia indica, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago 9,s.s. ‘* Caput parvum, nigricans. Pro-

thorax brevis, gibbosus, et fulvus, in medio fuscus.

Mesothorax fulvus, strigis longitudinalibus _ tribus,

quarum duz alarum radices versus prodeunt. Area

marginalis antica violaceo-tincta. Pedes antici fulvi,

tibs strigisque in femoribus singulis nigricantibus.

Setee parum ciliate, fulvee.” (Pict.)

Long. corp. ? 12, exp. al. 30 mm.

Hab.—The Hast Indies.

Mr. M’Lachlan possesses specimens of two other

species, undescribed, from N. W. India and Bombay.

Polymitarcys macrops.

Palingenia macrops, Hag. 1856.

Apex are marginalis antic nervis reticulatis.

Species in electro.

Long. corp. ¢ subim. 11, exp. al. 23 mm.

Genus PALINGENIA.

Ephemera, p., Ol. 1791; Palingenia, p., Burm. 1839 ;

restricted, Westw. 1840.

Nympha fodiens. Segmentorum abdominis 2-7 bran-

chiifera; laminée branchiales duplices, et bene fimbriate.

62 Rev. A. H. Haton’s Monograph

Palpi maxillares tri-articulati ; inferiores ultimis articu-

lorum late expansis. Mandibulee antice longe prolongatz,

per-robustz, extrinsecus serrate. Frons bicornuta, cor-

nibus dentatis, dentibusque lateralibus. Labrum subro-

tundatum, apice acuto. ‘Tibize antice intus dentate.

(Corn.)

Inter ultimam metamorphosem exuyias alarum mas

seepe evertit; feminz tamen subimago seepissime status

adultus est, pelle retenta. (Swam.)

Imago. Oculi integri. Setarum media est brevissima.

Alze quatuor. Tarsi postici quadri-articulati. Ovival-

vula femina caret. Forcipis pedes pedicillati, quadri- vel

forsan quinque-articulati, proximis articulorum longissi-

mis.

The nymphs live in burrows which they excavate a little

below the water-mark, in the clayey banks of large and

tranquil rivers.

Palingenia longicauda.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 17, 17a.)

Hemerobius, Clut. 1634. Hphemera longicauda, O1. 1791.

H. fuliginosa, Georgi, 1802. LH. flosaque, Illig. 1802.

Senblis marginata, Pz. 1804. H. Swammerdiana, Lat.

1805; H. Swammerdamiana, Shaw, 1806.

Pedes postici bi-unguiculati.

Imago, v.s.s. d. Alee cervine, nervis luridis. ‘Tho-

rax luteus; prothorax longitudinaliter quinque-striatus,”

(Pict.). Tarsorum posticorum primus, secundus et

tertius articulorum subzquales, quarto paulo breviores.

Ungues tenues conformes. Abdomen supra saturate um-

brinum. Pedes, venter, setaque, pallide lurido-ochracei.

Long. corp. ¢ 23, al. 24, set. 70 mm. (Pict.)

Hab.—The large rivers of Central Europe (e.g. in Ger-

many, Hungary, Austria, and the Netherlands); also in

the Caucasus. About Midsummer.

Swammerdam’s supposition, that the aquatic stages of

development occupy three years, seems merely a gratuitous

surmise ; for he reared no specimens, and founded his

conjecture upon the differences of size presented by the

nymphs alone. But though in this instance Swammer-

dam was inaccurate, his famous treatise will remain a

monument of his perseverance, and his extraordinary

powers of research.

on the Ephemeride. 63

Palingenia lata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. III. fig. 18, 18 a b.)

Palingenia lata, Walk. 1853.

Tarsi postici uni-unguiculati.

Adult. g, v. s. s. Ale et thorax fuliginosi. Pro-

thorax lineis longitudinalibus fuscis impressis quinque,

viz.: in medio una, latero-dorsalibus duabus, alterisque

intermediis duabus. Pedes sub-fuliginosi, vel testaceo-

cervini; tarsorum posteriores uni-unguiculati, proximis

articulorum paulo ceteris longioribus. Abdomen supra

fuscum. Sete lutescentes pilose.

Long. corp. ¢ 20, set. supra 70, exp. al. 43 mm.

Hab.—Silhet and Sarawak.

The specimens from Borneo have paler legs than those

from India.

Genus PENTAGENIA.

(Ala antica, Pl. I. fig. 6.)

Palingenia (A), Walsh, 1862; Pentagenia, Walsh, 1863.

Imago. Ale quatuor. Oculiintegri. Setarum media

in ¢ brevissima, in ¢ ceteris parum brevior. Tarsus

posticus quadri-articulatus; articulorum tres priores

eequales, et quarto breviores; ungues dissimiles. Femina

caret ovivalvula. Pedes forcipis quadri-articulati, secundo

articulorum longissimo.

Pentagenia vittigera.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 1.)

Pal. vittigera, Walsh, 1862 ; Pent. vittigera, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago. “ Ale opace, flavescentes.”

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. “QOculorum partes superiores

exemplaris viventis flavescentes, inferiores rubiginose.”

(Walsh.) Medium dorsi fuliginosum ; latera venterque

testacea, paucis segmentorum apicalium flavis exceptis.

Nervi alarum pallidissime testacei, vel electro colorati ;

plurimis nervorum transversalium in area’ marginali,

puncto nodali subcostz, lineique infra eandem in quoque

nervorum (preter unum) sequentium duorum, atris. Pedes

64. Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

subtestacei; antici apicibus.femorum juncturisque tarso-

rum fuscis. Apud segmentorum abdominis juncturas

dorsales, linezw flavescentes duz breves divergentes

sunt. Setee albz pubescentes.

? simillima, pedibus sub-gambosis. Alee, bases ver-

sus, et in arels marginalibus imprimis, lurido tinctee.

Long. corp. ¢ 17- 19;, 9 17-205 al. 18-19 setts

40-50 & 5, subim. 18 & 4°5; set. 2 13 &10°5-20 &15 mm.

Hab.—Illinois and Texas.

Pentagenia quadripunctata.

P. 4-punctata, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago. ‘ Alse opace albicantes.”

Imago 2. ‘“Striga dorsalis picea in segmento sin-

gulo abdominis hexagonum symmetricum format. Ala

antica in medio serie curvata punctorum fuscorum ne-

bulis parvis cinctorum ; viz.—in costa uno, unoque in

nervorum sequentium quarto, sexto, et nono.

Long. corp. 19°5; exp. alar. 40; set. 9? 22°5 & 19°5,

subim. 17 & 14; set. ¢ subim. 15 & 3 mm.

Hab.—tIhnois.

Genus HEXAGENIA.

(Ala antica, Pl. I. fig. 7.)

Baetis, p., Say, 1824; Ephemera, Guér. 1829-43; Palin-

genia, p., Pict. 1843-5; Palingenia (B), Walsh, 1862;

Hexagenia, Walsh, 1863.

Nympha fodiens a Dom. Walsh, in “The American

Naturalist, Oct. 1868,” figuratur.

Imago. Oculi integri. Setarum media brevissima.

Alee quatuor. ‘Tarsus posticus quadri-articulatus, primo

articulorum vix secundo longiore; ungues dissimiles.

Ovivalvula femina caret. Pedes forcipis quadri-articulati ;

articulorum secundus est longissimus.

Hexagenia albivitta.

(Forceps, Pl. IV. fig. 2, 2'a:)

Baetis albivitta, Walk. 1853. Palingenia continua, Walsh,

1860.

Subimago paulo imagine obscurior.

Imago ¢,v. s. s. Dorsum atrum, striga longitu-

dinali lati media nivea, in prothorace oblongi; in

on the Ephemeride. 65

meso- et meta-thoracibus mitriformi, et in abdomine

marginibus serratis, claudente in segmentis singulis api-

calibus lineas duas breves divergentes atras. Venter

sub-hepaticoloratus, striga longitudinali testacea, atque

apicibus seementorum obscuratis. Ale vitrine, pallide

fuliginoso tincte, nervis piceis ; anticarum coste fusce ;

posticarum nervi transversales obscure marginati. Pedes

testacei ; antici fuscescentes, tarsis atris, ultimis articu-

lorum fuscis. Sete cervine, fusco cincte.

Long. corp. ¢ 15, al. 15; set. im. 35, subim. 23 mm.

Hab.—The Amazons and Texas.

Mr. M’Lachlan has a specimen of an undescribed In-

dian species, in some respects closely related to this.

Heaagenia (?) atrostoma.

Ephemera atrostoma, Weber, 1801; Palingenia atrostoma,

Pict. 1843-5.

«K. flava, dorso alisque fuscis, ore oculisque atris.

Thorax marginatus canaliculatusque. Abdomen cauda

biseti, setis longissimis flavis.”? (Weber.)

Hab.—Brazil (Weber).

Hewxagenia decolorata.

Palingenia decolorata, Hag. 1861.

Imago in spiritii ztheris conservata. ‘ Lutea; caput

fusco-nigrum ; pedum antici nigricantes, posteriores

lutei; abdomen luteum, strigis lateralibus obscure fuscis,

et setis luteis; ale vitrinew, flavescenti tinct, nervis

luteis, subcostis fuscis exceptis.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. 16, set. 30 (?); exp. al. 30 mm.

Hab.—Mexico; Matamoras; Tamaulipas. Common.

(Hag.)

Perhaps this is only a colour variety of the following

species, but I am unable to decide the point.

Hexagenia limbata.

(Forceps, Pl. IV. fig. 3, 3a.)

Bphemera limbata, Guer. 1829-43 ; Palingenia limbata,

Pict. 1843-5. Palingenia bilineata, Hag. 1861.

Subimago, v.s.s. Al pallide flavicantes, plurimis

nervorum transversalium corvinis. Setz pilose.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—parRTI. (MARCH.) F

66 Rey. A. H. Haton’s Monograph

Imago, v.s.s. 6 “Oculorum partes superiores acute

virescenti-flavee, partes inferiores nigre. Sete fusce,

proximis dimidiorum articulorum pallidis.” (Walsh, v. 8.)

Strigze laterales dorsi prothoracis nigra retro produ-

cuntur, et findentesjuxta bases alarum, ¢ circa mesothoracis

apicem desinunt. Alarum nervi plerumque picei, bases

versus pallidi; interdum vero longitudinales lutei, et

transversales solum picei sunt. “‘Pedes antici fusci,

basibus plerumque artictlorum tarsalium 2, 3, 4, albi-

cantibus vel flavescentibus; posteriores acute flaves-

centes, paucis articulorum tarsalium cum apicibus, quin-

toque in toto, fuscis. Abdomen supra striga in medio

fusca, lineisque lateralibus obliquis ab apicibus segmen-

torum “quibus in trigonis paribus flavicantibus vel

fulvescentibus latera dorsi finduntur.”

9g. A ¢ innervis alarum vitriris (“ hyaline” Walsh)

vel flavescentibus discrepat. Setze flavee.

Long. corp. ¢ 20-21, 9 22; set. ¢ 40, 9 subim. 20;

exp. al. 3 38, ? 30 mm. (Pict.)

Hab.—Arctic America, Texas and Mexico; in large

rivers. Mr. M’Lachlan has many specimens.

Hexagenia bilineata.

(Forceps, Pl. IV. fig. 4.)

Baetis bilineata, Say, 1824. Palingenia viridescens &

occultata, Walk. 1853. Baetis angulata, Walk. 1853.

Palingenia limbata, Hag. 1861. Palingenia bilineata,

Walsh, 1863.

Subimago, v.s. s. Alee griseze, nervis piceis, bases

versus lutescentes. Alarum posteriores apud margines

terminales atro hmbatz.

Imago, v.s.s. o ‘ Oculorum dimidiorum superiora

cinamomeo-fusca, inferiora atra”? (Walsh, v.s.). Pedum

antici picei, apicibus tibiarum et proximis articulorum

tarsorum atris; ‘interdum 2, 3 et 4tus articulorum bases

versus pallidiores sunt: posteriores in s. s. ochracei; vel

(veluti in v. s.) femoribus obscure virescentibus, cum

genubus, tibus, tarsisque fuscis. Nervi alarum picei;

harum anterior areis me re.nal et submarginali, atque

posterior margine termine..:, ruscis.

Q s.s. ‘* Dorsum prothoracis in fronte et ad latera

nigrum. Abdominis striga dorsalis maculam cretaceam

on the Ephemeride. 67

oblongam vel triangulam apud latera segmenti singuli

utrinque relinquit; striga ipsa segmentorumque apici-

bus fuscis.”” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 17-21, 2? 21-29; set. ¢ 42-51, subim.

18; set. 9 20, subim. 18-19; al. ¢ 17-20, 9 21-23 mm.

Hab.—Arctic America, to New Orleans; in lakes and

rivers.

The Hexagenie are said to appear in suitable localities

in astounding profusion. The late Mr. Walsh says he

has seen shrubs broken down by the accumulated masses

of one species upon them! ‘The name of the shrub, and

how many thousand specimens of the Hexagenia in ques-

tion go to the pound, are unfortunately omitted from his

observations.

Genus HurnypLocia, nov. gen.

(Alee anticee partes, Pl. I. fig. 8, 8a.)

Palingenia, p., Hag. 1861.

Imago ¢. Ala quatuor. Seta tres, longs, sub-

eequales.

Huthyplocia Hecuba.

Palingenia Hecuba, Hag. 1861.

Imago, v.s. s. ?. ‘‘ Capite nigro-fusco ; prothoraco

fusco, polito ; coxis luteis; alis magnis opacis, cervino-

tinctis, costas versus obcuratioribus, nervis griseis. Ab-

domen supra nigro-fuscum, subtus lutescens; setis

_ saturate fumatis.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. 22, exp. al. 78 mm.

Hab.—Vera Cruz (Sallé) ; Veragua.

There is a specimen of this insect in Mr. M’Lachlan’s

collection, and another (the type) in that of Baron De

Selys Longchamps. The legs are lost, and the colours

are so faded, that I have preferred citing the old de-

scription to redescribing the species. In what Dr. Hagen

suspects to be the male, the undivided eyes are almost

contiguous, the median seta is very long, and the an-

terior legs are long and feeble.

68 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Genus Hpyemera.

(Ala antica, in parte, Pl. I. fig. 9.)

Bphemera, Lin. 1735.*

Nympha fodiens. Segmentorum abdominis 1-7 bran-

chiifera: laminarum prime minutissime, bipartite, di-

midiis linearibus marginibus integris ; posteriores quoque

duplices, sed dimidiis acute lanceolatis, marginibus bene

fimbriatis. Palpimaxillares bi- articulati: superiores longi,

hirsuti, secundo articulorum primo longiore: inferiores

apicibus articulorum ultimorum dilatis, obliquis. Man-

dibulze latus externum in cornu prorecto longissimo valde

prorsus producitur. Frons breviter bicornuta, cornibus

simplicibus.

Alis conniventibus erectis, pedibus anticis elevatis et

prorectis, sctisque caudalibus subparallelis, subimago

quiescit. Setarum laterales inter se approximantur vel

subtus vel supra mediam.

Imago. Oculi integri; alee quatuor; sete tres longe,

subeequales. ‘T'arsi postici quadri-articulati ; articulorum

tres priores subeequales ; ungues dissimiles. Pedes for-

cipis quadri-articulati, secundo articulorum longissimo.

Ovivalvuld femina caret.

Species of this genus usually appear in moderate

numbers. The apical cross-veinlets of the marginal area

of the fore-wing are variable in the same species. The

pale spots of the thorax of the subimago, mentioned in

the description of H. vulgata, are found in the other .

EKuropean species.

Ephemera vulgata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 5, 5a. Maculee abdominales,

fig. 5b.)

Hphemera maculata, Lin. 1747. EH. vulgata [De G.

1755]; Lin. 1758. H. communis, Retz. 1783. EH. danica,

Ronalds, 1856.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale vel flavo-virentes, vel vires-

centi-grisex, vel cinerez, nervis fuscis; anticee in medio

fusco vel piceo maculate ; nervi transversales maris cor-

vino marginati: margines terminales late griseo tincti.

* Ephemerum, Hampe (1844), is a genus of the Phascei, an Order of

the Acrocarpous Mosses.

on the Ephemeride. 69

Vertex capitis maculd lutea: prothorax lineis longitudi-

nalibus duabus atris; mesothorax supra macula magna

lutescente, ex qui in fronte et a posteriore strigze cur-

vate due producuntur; metathorax luteus, maculis

L-formatis nigris duabus.

Imago, v.v.s. d. Caput atrum, oculis supra fuligi-

nosis, infra vel paulo saturatioribus vel nigris. Thoracis

tergum aterrimum nitens. Ale virescenti-grisez vel

pallidissime flavo-virentes, maculis piceis et nervis atris :

posteriores marginibus terminalibus late, et nervis trans-

versalibus anguste, griseo tinctis. Pedes olivacei; antici

femoribus atro-piceis, et tarsis fuscis; posteriores tibiis

tarsisque fulvis, apicibus articulorum ultimorum et ungui-

bus fuscis. Abdomen umbrino-olivaceum, juncturis et

apicibus segmentorum plus aut minus ochraceis: trian-

gulos acutos duos, lineasque interpositas breves duas,

segmentorum posteriorum supra quidque habet, infraque

lneas longitudinales atras quatuor, viz., duas longas

sub-parallelas, et duas breves divergentes: in anteriori-

bus segmentorum trianguli in strigis curvatis se conver-

tunt, et notule interposite obsolescuntur. Setz fusce,

juncturis fuliginosis, atque pubescentes, preecipue apices

versus. Forceps fuscus.

? plane omnino mari similis, alis pallidioribus ex-

ceptis.

Var. $ et 9,v.v.s. Pro maculis trigonalibus, lines

curvate segmentis singulis sunt.

Long. corp. 14-22; al. ¢ 16-17, 2 18-24; set. ¢ im.

33 & 34-32 & 36, subim. 16 & 17-19°5 & 21; set. 2 im.

22 & 24-26, subim. 17 & 16-18 & 19 mm.

| Hab.—Moscow (Oul.); Scandinavia (Zet.); England,

, Germany, France, and Switzerland. May and June.

This species is plentiful in warm rivers and tranquil

streams in England, and in some of the Swiss lakes (e. g.,

near Brunnig).

Ephemera guttulata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. LV. fig. 6, 6a. Maculee abdominales,

fig. 6b.)

Ephemera guttulata, Pict. 1843-5. Ephemera deeora,

E. simulans & Palingenia natata, Walk. 1853. Ephemera

natata, Hag. 1861.

70 Rey. A. HE. Eaton’s Monograph

Subimago, v. s. 8s. ¢ @?. Ale vix nigricantes,

maculis et marginibus nervorum transversalium piceis.

Pedes purpureo-brunnei. Sete fuliginose, juncturis

obscuris.

Imago, v.s.s. &. Ale vitrine, in nervis transversa-

libus piceo crebre maculate. Pedes et sete lutei, junc-

turis fuscescentibus. Macule magne dorsi abdominis

transverse, subquadrate, angulis posticis retro pro-

ductis, et lateribus emarginatis: venter bilineatus.

? simillima, alis sparse maculatis.

Long. corp. ¢ 11, ? 18-15; al. g 18-15, ¢ 15-19;

set. ¢ im. 25, subim. 14; set. @ subim. 15 mm.

Hab.—From Northern Illinois and from Connecticut

northwards ; in rivers.

This species resembles H. vulgata in having the back

of the abdomen spotted instead of being merely streaked,

and also in the general formation of the male genital

organs. M. Pictet’s specimen seems, from the figure, to

have been a male imago.

Ephemera flaveola.

Li. flaveola, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago, v.s.s. ‘Ale fumate. Sete obscure et

pallide virescentes.”

Imago, v. s. ¢. “Vertex capitis rubiginosus ; ter-

gum thoracis pallidius. Ale vitrine; anticee apud costas

flavescenti-tinctz, et tribus prioribus nervorum longitu-

dinalium flavescentibus. Pedes flavescentes; antici

apicibus femorum et tibiarum, proximis articulorum tar-

Salium et apicibus juncturisque ceterum, rubiginosis.

Abdomen flavescens, strigd pallidé utrinque segmentorum

3-7. Setz albicantes, juncturis fuscis.”

9 v.s. Abdomen vitelli-coloratum. Nervi trans-

versales alarum fusci, eis ad apices et apud margines

terminales exceptis.”

Long. corp. ¢ 7°5-9°5, ¢ 9-10°5; set. g im. 20&

14, subim. 12 & 10; set. 9 im. 12 & 10; exp.al. ¢ 17-

19, @ 19-20. (Walsh.)

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh) ; and New York.

on the Ephemeride. 71

Ephemera myops.

EF. myops, Walsh, 1863.

“© Hphemerd flaveold major ; oculi eis speciei illius mi-

nores, et ab ipsis remoti. Segmentorum abdominis 1-5

rubiginosa, sextum et nonum pallidiora, septimum et

octavum flavescentia: vel omnia segmentorum flaves-

centia sunt.

Long. corp. ¢ 12-13; exp. al. 26-27; set. 27 & 19-29

& 21 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois.” (Walsh.)

Dr. Hagen ad paginam 177 operis supra citati (Walsh

1863) diagnosem quam forsan ad H. myopis varietatem

pertineat donavit :—

<¢ Ale vitrinee, maculose. Abdomen flavum, immacu-

latum. H. danice subsimilis.”

Long. corp. 19, exp. al. 42 mm.

Hab.—New York. (Hag.)

Ephemera lineata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 7, 7a. Note abdominales,

fic. 7b.)

E. danica, Pict. 1843-5 (nec Miil.). H. lineata, Kin. 1870.

Subimago, v. v.s. Als virescenti-grisex, marginibus

terminalibus pallido griseo late tinctis, et nervis trans-

versalibus atris. Horum pauci in medio alz antice atro-

brunneo marginati sunt, ideoque seriem macularum for-

mant.

Imago, v. v.s. o. Thorax supra fusco-piceus. Ale

vitrine, nervis et maculis atris; antics in areis margi-

nali submarginali, atque late marginem terminalem

versus, corvino tincte. Pedum anteriores femoribus

piceis, tibiis tarsisque atris: posteriores virescenti-

erisel, coxis, maculis utrinque femorum, et apicibus junc-

turisque tarsorum, atris. Abdomen fusco-virescenti-

griseum, apicem versus lutescens: segmentorum poste-

riora singula strigis atris dorsalibus sex, infraque lineis

longitudinalibus atris duabus ; illarum due longs unaque

brevis utrinque supra medium dorsi sunt. Sete fusce,

juncturis atris ; forceps lutescens. Strigarum duz breves

ab anterioribus segmentorum absunt.

72 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

@. Simillima mari. Prothoracis tergum virescenti

griseum, strigis lateralibus atris duabus. Meso- et meta-

thoraces lutei, strigis obscuris inter alas duabus. Ale

vitrine, nervis transversalibus atris, et nervis longitudi-

nalibus cum areis marginalibus et submarginalibus, vires-

centi-griseis. Pedes antici fusci, apicibus femoris, tibie,

articulorumque tarsalium, atque tibize basi, atris. Caput

ochraceum, circa ocellos luteum, oculis (veluti in @)

fuligineo-umbrinis.

Long. corp. ¢ 15-20, 9 21-25; al. g 16, 9 20-21 ;

set. ¢ 30 & 35-6; set. ¢ im. 24 & 26-25 & 24, subim.

15 mm.

Hab.—The Thames, and the Kennet, near Reading ;

near Paris; and Genthod, near Geneva. June and July.

It frequents rivers or tranquil waters.

I have no doubt that the two females referred by Dr.

Hagen to #. glaucops, Pict. subim. (Hag. 1863), were

specimens of H. lineata. The H. danica of M. Pictet’s

collection is #. vulgata, Lin.

Ephemera danica.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 8. Macule abdominalis,

fig. 8a.)

EH. danica, Mil. 1764. EH. maculata, Vill. 1789. 4H.

vulgata, Don. 1795. LH. cognata, Ste. 1835-6. H. his-

panica, Rbr. 1842.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale: fumate, nervis atris, lutescen-

tibus bases versus; vel flavo-virentes. Pedes lutei, tibiis

et tarsis posticorum flavo-virescentibus, apicibus articu-

lorum nigricantibus. Abdomen flavicans, maculis corvinis,

et setis piceis.

Imago, v. v.s. ¢.Caput et tergum thoracis aterrima

vel picea ; os et prosternum straminea; oculi fuliginosi.

Alee vix corvinee; antice areis marginalibus et submar-

ginalibus anthracinis, maculis fuscis, et nervis atris.

Pedum antici atri; posteriores atro-fusci, juncturis satu-

ratioribus. Abdomen cretaceum, postice szpe fusco

suffusum: posteriora segmentorum strigas quatuor supra

habent, infraque lineas longas, atras vel fuscas, duas ;

anteriora lineis intermediis supra carent, vel etiam omni-

bus. Sets piceze.

ncaa

on the Bphemeride. 73

@ abdomine pallide ochraceo, lineis et strigis fuscis.

Ale vitrinee: antics: in areis marginalibus et submargi-

nalibus, posticee margines terminales versus, nigricanti

tincte. Pedum posteriores saturate virescente grisei,

juncturis atris.

Long. corp. ¢ 16, 9 16-23; al. g 16, 2 14-22; set.

6 35 & 30, 2? 14-25, subim. 17 mm.

Hab.—Spain (Rbr.); France (Blanch.); England ;

Lapland (Pict.); Moscow (Oul.) ; Belgium and Germany.

In brooks, streams, and cold swift rivers; from May to

July.

This is the May-fly of anglers. Fishermen apply

various names to it, according to the state and sex ; thus

the “Green Drake” (2 subim.), ‘‘ Bastard Drake” ( g

subim.), and the ‘‘May-fly” (¢ im.). It frequents

colder and more rapid streams than H. vulgata. Mr. E.

Brown, of Burton-on-Trent, tells me that on one occasion

he saw the River Dove almost covered with the sub-

imago, at a part where it is upwards of twenty or thirty

feet broad.

Ephemera glaucops.

(Forceps, Pl. IV. fig. 9.)

E. lutea, Sulz. 1776: (nec Lin.). EL. glaucops, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v.s.s. Als pallide cervino tinctz, nervis

transversalibus atris rufo-cervino marginatis, ideoque in

medio alz antice et prope basin maculas formantibus ;

margines terminales, vel griseo vel rufo-cervino late

tincti; nervi longitudinales flavescentes. Oculi saturate

ceesil.

Imago 3, v.v.s. Oculi supra vel olivacei vel rubi-

gineo-lutescentes, infra saturate olivacei vel purpureo-

rubiginei: os flavescens. Corpus rubigineo-luteum vel

luteum; “ prothorax maculis fuscis duabus” (Pict.).

Alze vitrine, maculis paucis, et margines terminales versus

tinctee, longitudinalibus nervorum (transversalibus ipsis

atris) et marginibus transversalium, atque areis margina-

hibus et submarginalibus, plus aut minus lutescentibus.

Pedum antici lutescentes, apud juncturas atri: posteriores

testacei, juncturis saturatioribus vel virescenti-grisei.

Segmentorum abdominis posteriora singula strigas atras

74 Rev. A. H. Eaton’s Monograph

quatuor supra habent, infraque lineas duas ; strigis inter-

mediis duabus anteriora segmentorum carent. Forfex

lutea, juncturis atris vel piceis. Sete fuliginose, junc-

turis obscuris.

Q y.s.s. Simillima, sed mari pallidior.

Long. corp. ¢ 16-17, ¢ 16; al. g 14-15, 9 16;

set. ¢ 23, subim. 17, ? im. 14mm.

Hab.—Moscow (Oul.) ; Germany (Burm.); Switzer-

land and North Italy. In lakes; the end of July, and

August.

Ephemera immaculata, n. sp.

(Forceps, Pl. IV. fig. 10.)

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thoracis tergum brunneo-luteum.

Pedum antici picei, femoribus bases versus pallidioribus ;

posteriores brunneo-testacei. Ale vitrins, immaculate ;

antic areis submarginalibus, posticee apud margines

terminales, fuliginoso tinct; nervi obscuri. Abdomen

fuscum, apicibus segmentorum lineisque spiracularibus

saturatioribus. Sete umbrine, invarie.

Long. corp. ¢ 10°5, al. 11 mm.

Hab.—Cuna, Hindostan.

In the Oxford Museum.

Ephemera exspectans.

Potamanthus exspectans, Walk. 1860.

Subimago, v. s. s. Ale pallide furfurose, nervis

transversalibus purpureo-brunneis. Tergum thoracis

fulvescens, strig’ utrinque fusci. Abdomen lineis longi-

tudinalibus tenuibus atris, supra quatuor, infra duabus.

Sete olivaceo-lutez, juncturis fuscis. Pedes lurido-

ochracel.

Long. corp. ° subim. 11, al. 14 mm.

Hab.—Hindostan.

Ephemera fasciata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 11, 11a.)

Potamanthus fasciatus, Hag. 1858.

Subimago, v. s. s. 9. Ale cervine ; antice nervis

transversalibus atris, paucis in area marginali juxta sub-

on the Ephemeride. 75

costam obscure marginatis, et areis submarginalibus cum

crassioribus nervorum longitudinalium lutescentibus.

Pedes pubescentes.

Imago, v.s.s. 6. Thoracis tergum testaceum. Ale

vitrine ; anticz apud costas et apices versus pallide luteo

tinctz ; nervorum longitudinales furfurosi, transversales

atri, puncto nodali subcostz subfuliginoso. Pedes pallide

testacel ; antici tarsis nigricantibus (prioribus articulorum

fuscis exceptis) et tibiis fuscis. Abdomen sub-ochraceum

vel stramineum, supra lineis longitudinalibus duabus, et

macula parva trigonali ad apicem cujusque segmentorum

posteriorum utrinque, atris: prioribus segmentorum

trianguli absunt. Set furfurose, juncturis saturatio-

ribus.

Long. corp. ¢ 13-14, al. 14-15, set. ¢ im. 32-40, 9

15 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde, Ceylon ; Masuri, North India.

Ephemera serica, nu. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 12, 12a.)

Subimago, v. s. s. Ale pallide testaceze; femins

plures nervorum transversalium, qui tres priores ner-

vorum longitudinalium alz antice interjacent, et pauci

ceeterorum, atri; in mari quidew plures etiam ceterorum

atri sunt.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Caput lutescens, circa ocellos rufo-

brunneum. Tergum thoracis furfurosum vel brunneo-

ochraceum, macula elongata utrinque prothoracis atra.

Alz vitrine, nervis veluti in subimagine; punctum

rotundatum apud punctum nodale, et alia in mediis ner-

vorum transversalium circa medium alee picea; ale pos-

ticeeimmaculate. Pedes ochracei, coxis singulis maculis,

apicibus femorum et tibiarum anticarum, atque basibus

harum, atris. Abdomen pallide ochraceum, lineis longi-

tudinalibus atris tribus infra et supra. Sete ochracez,

irregulariter atro annulate.

? simillima.

Long. corp. ¢ 11, 9 14; al. ¢ 18, 2 18; set. 9

subim. 17 mm.

Hab.—Northern China.

76 Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Genus PoTAMANTHUS.

(Ala antica, in parte, Pl. II. fig. 1.)

Ephemera, p., Lin. 1767. Baetis, p., Curt. 1834, Po-

tamanthus, p., Pict. 1843-5; Htn. 1868.

Imago. Oculi maris subpartiti. Alee quatuor. Sets

tres subeequales. Artus forcipis tri-articulati, proximo

articulorum longissimo. Tarsi postici quinque-articulati :

articulorum primus brevissimus, tibiee adnatus, vix obso-

letus; secundus tertio vel quarto multo longior: ungues

dissimiles. Ovivalvula femina caret.

Potamanthus luteus.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 13, 13a.)

Ephemera lutea, Lin. 1767. HE. marginata, ? Mil. 1776.

H. reticulata, Foure. 1785. LF. hyalina, Pz. 1804. Baetis

mellea, Curt. 1834. B. marginalis, Burm. 1839. HE. flavi-

cans & EH. chlorotica, Ramb. 1842. P. luteus, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v.s.s. 6. Ale flavee, costas versus paulo

saturatiores, nervis tranversalibus nigris.

@. Ale virescenti-griseo tinct, apud bases flaves-

centes, nervis flavescentibus.

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. Thoracis tergum luteum vel

ochraceo-furfurosum. Ale vitrine, flavescentes costas

versus ; nervorum longitudinales flavi, transversales atri.

Pedum antici sub-furfurosi, tarsis pallidis, sed apicibus

tibiarum, juncturis et proximis articulorum tarsalium

fuscis; posteriores straminei, unguibus juncturisque tar-

sorum obscuris. Abdominis dorsum furfurosum, junctu-

ris saturatioribus: segmentum singulum puncto sub-

laterali apicali fusco, et puncto basali in linea spiraculari

nigro, utrinque. Forceps flavus vel stramineus. Sete

sub-furfuros, juncturis piceis, breviterque pubescentes.

2. “Clarior mari, macula fusca super prothoracem,

et juncturis tarsorum anticorum obscure fuscis.” (Pict.)

ong..corp.. .¢ 10-115 9-9); al..3 12-13; sexpaaleae

29; set. ¢@ im. 15-19, 9 12 mm.

Hab.—England (Curt. & M’Lach.); France (Geof.);

Germany (Sulz., Pict.).

on the Ephemeride: ¢@

Potamanthus Ferreri.

P. Ferreri, Pict. 1843-5.

Imago, ¢. ‘Thorax pallide furfurosus, macula dorsali

pone prothoracem fuscé. Al vitrine, nervis pallidis-

_sime flavescentibus, et pluribus transversalium indiscretis.

Pedum antici pallide fusci, femoribus coxisque saturatio-

ribus, et juncturis flavis; posteriores pallide furfurosi,

invaril. Abdominis dorsum fuscum, latera versus fulvum,

macula media trigonali super singula segmenta; venter

fulvus. Sete et forceps pallide flavee.”

Long. corp. ¢ 13, set. 18, exp. al. 30 mm.

Hab.—Turin (Pict.).

Genus LEprorpHLEBiA.

(Ala antica, Pl. IT. fig. 2a.)

Ephemera, p., Lin. 1746. Baetis, p., Burm. 1839.

Leptophlebia, p., Westw. 1840. Potamanthus, p., Pict.

1843-5. Palingenia, p., Walk. 1853. Leptophlebia (re-

stricted) , Htn. 1868.

Imago. Ale quatuor. Setarum media est longa vel

abbreviata. Oculi maris sub-partiti.

It is with very great hesitation that I venture provi-

sionally to retain in this genus the majority of the species

placed in it. Ignorance of their preparatory stages of

development compels one to class them all together, for

the present. The group to which L. fusca belongs seems

at first sight to be clearly distinct from the rest; but the

nymph of L. fusca resembles that figured by Professor

Pictet as the nymph of ZL. cincta; and besides this, in

the closely allied genus Daetis, it is found that considerable

differences in the form and neuration of the posterior

wings of species are compatible with their being in the

same genus: therefore L. fusca, in spite of appearances,

can hardly be separated from the group of which LZ. mar-

ginata is the type, with safety. On the other hand, the

differences between the group last mentioned, and that

of which JL. eupida is the type, are, upon the whole,

equivalent to those between Ephemera and Hezxagenia ;

therefore it may be a mistake to consider them as sections

merely of one genus. When the nymphs are known, all

doubts will be set at rest; but not until then. Most likely

78 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

differences will be detected between the maxille and

maxillary palpi of the typical species of the several series,

sufficiently marked to require their generic separation.

Series 1. Sp. typica, DL. australis.

Imago. Tarsus posticus veluti in Potamantho, sed

unguibus conformibus uncinatis. Setarum trium media

quidem est longa, et ceteris subzqualis: plerumquoe

tamen abrumpitur, igiturque cauda biseta esse videtur.

Forcipis artus tri-articulati, proximo articulorum longis-

simo. Coste alarum posticarum haud excisee sunt (nisi

‘in DL. auriculata).

Occurrunt species in Australia, et circa litora Oceani

Indici usque ad Promontorium Spei Bone.

Leptophlebia australis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 14, 14a. Ale anticee arezw

marg’. apex, fig. 14b.)

Ephemera australis, Walk. 1853.

Subimago, v. s.s. Alarum anticarum nervi transver-

sales fusco vel virescenti-griseo marginati, marginibus

plus aut minus coufluentibus: paucitas illorum spatium

lambda-forme clarum relinquit, quod apicem angulumque

analem oblique interjacit, atque ad basin alee crus breve

emittit.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Tergum thoracis piceum, politum.

Ale vitrine, nervis luteo-piceis, et apice areze marginalis

antic sub-virescenti-griseo, nervulis transversalibus nu-

merosis obliquis et subrectis. Pedum antici fusco-picei,

posteriores flavescentes, femoribus obscure nigro bicinctis,

et tarsis testaceis. Abdomen luteo-fuscum vel luteo-

castaneum. Sete pices.

Long. corp. & 7-10, al. 9-11, set. 23 & 22 mm.

Hab.—Tasmania. (Brit. Mus.)

Leptophlebia australasica,

(Ala antica, Pl. IL. fig. 2. Genitalia maris, Pl. IV.

fir. 15, 15 a, b.)

Baetis australasica, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, s.s. ‘ Ale nigricantes, nervis saturatiori-

bus.” (Pict. e figura.)

on the Ephemeride. 79

Imago, v.s.s. 6. Thoracis tergum atro-piceum. Ale

vitrine, lurido sub-tincte, nervis atro-piceis; margines

virescenti-grisei nervorum simplicium transversalium in

areis marginalibus et submarginalibus, in apicibus illarum

confluent. Pedum antici atro-picei; posteriores rufo-

lutei, femoribus atro bicinctis. Abdominis dorsum rufo-

fuscum, venter rufo-luteus ; segmentorum 2-8 singula

maculis apicalibus utrinque juxta media rotundatis atris,

lineisque obscuris obliquis ex apicibus retrorsum fere ad

bases productis.

?. Simillima. Processus ventralis e segmentorum

penultimo excisus.

Long. corp. d 9-10; al. g 9 11; set. d 32 mm.

Hab.—Sidney and (?) Melbourne.

Leptophlebia furcifera, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 16, 16b. Areg marginalis

apex, fig. 16a.)

Imago, v. s. s. g. Tergum mesothoracis brunneo-

luteum: metathorax aterrimo-sanguineus. Pedum pos-

teriores (exemplar anticis caruit) testacei, femoribus fusco

bicinctis, at trochanteribus juxta bases obscure fuscis.

Ale: vitrine, iridi-colorate, nervis piceis: antice apex

areze marginalis rufo-fusco tinctus, nervis transversalibus

simplicibus numerosis subrectis et obliquis; ceeteri ner-

vorum transversalium inter costam, subcostam, duosque

nervorum longitudinalium sequentium rufo-fusco margi-

nati: puncta nodalia subcostz nervique sequentis nebulis

parvis fuliginosis, veluti etiam punctum bifurcationis

quarti nervorum pone costam, circumfunduntur. Abdo-

men sanguineo-atrum, lined in medio longitudinali, lineis

spiracularibus, maculisque trigonalibus latero-apicalibus

segmentorum 2-6, pallidis. Sete cretacez, juncturis in

vices atris.

Long. corp. 3, et al. 11, set. 13 & 16 mm.

Hab.—Melbourne. (M’Coy.)

Leptophlebia inconspicua, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 17, 17b. Areze marginalis

apex, fig. 17a.)

Imago, v. s. s. g. Thoracis tergum politum. Ale

vix lacteo tinct, nervis piceis. Pedes picei; interdum

80 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

tarsi antici et posteriores pedum pallidiores sunt. Ab-

domen apicem versus piceum, segmentis intermediis

pallidioribus, maculis parvis ovalibus ad latera dorsi fla-

vescentibus. Setee fusca, juncturis saturatioribus.

Long. corp. ¢ 5-6, al. 6-7 mm.

Hab.—Adelaide.

Leptophlebia dentata, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 18, 18a, b; femine, fig. 18c.

Aree marginalis apex, fig. 18d.)

Imago, v.s.s. 6. Thoracis tergum furfurosum. Alze

cano tinctz, nervis transversalibus anguste marginatis:

juxta punctum nodale subcostz, atque in areze marginalis

apice, sunt labeculee atree: ares marginalis et submargi-

nalis obscure luteze. Pedes lutei, juncturis tarsorum

piceis, et apicibus tibiarum anticarum atris. Abdomen

adusto-umbrinum, apicibus segmentorum saturatioribus.

Setee pilose, ochraceee, juncturis obscuris.

2? simillima. Processus ventralis penultimi segmen-

torum emarginatus.

laong.: corp:: 6''8, 9 7-9 3eal. 6 T1589) 7-135 saber

18, 2 15-16 mm.

Hab.—New Zealand.

Leptophlebia strigata, nov. sp.

(Lamina penult. segment., Pl. IV. fig. 19.)

Imago, v. s. s. @. Thoracis tergum fusco-fulvum,

lineis longitudinalibus duabus utrinque prothoracis atris,

quarum exteriores ad bases alarum anticarum prodeunt.

Alze vitrinee, nervis piceis, juxta bases luridz ; anteriores

prope costas umbrino-fulve. Pedes saturate furfurosi,

femoribus obscure bicinctis, cingulis anticorum plus aut

minus confluentibus; tibie tarsique pallidi, juncturis

saturatioribus. Abdomen auroreum, strigis duabus lon-

gitudinalibus atris (e triangulis truncatis continuis con-

structis), lneaque utrinque singulo segmento apicali

obliqui nigri: subtus lnea longitudinali simplici in

medio aterriméi. Setz pallide rubiginose, juncturis

obscuris.

Long. corp. Q@ 22, al. 16, set. 23 & 19 mm.

Hab.—North Australia.

on the Hphemeride. 81

Leptophlebia costalis.

Baetis costalis, Burm. 1839; Potamanthus costalis, Pict.

1843-5.

Subimago,s.s. d. “ Nigra, linea thoracis ante alas

albida, abdomine pedibusque rufo-cingulatis ; alis sub-

fumatis, venis omnibus arew marginalis prime et secunda

infuscatis.” (Burm.)

Long. corp. 3 6.”

Hab.—New Holland. Perhaps allied to L. dentata.

Leptophlebia nodularis, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 20, 20 b,c. Ala postica,

fig. 20a.)

Subimago, v.s.s. Ale vix nigricantes ; antice ner-

vis transversalibus anguste nigricanti marginatis, mar-

ginibus plus minusve apud medium ale et inter medium

apicemque confluentibus ; posticee unicolores.

Imago, v.s. s. ¢. Thorax supra atro-piceus. Ala

vitrine, nervis atris; nervi transversales arez marginalis

areeeque submarginalis anguste et obscure marginati,

atque inter se apud medium cost iterumque paulo ante

apicem approximantes, ita ut peene maculas fingant; ares

pars basalis fusca. Pedum antici obscure lutescentes,

femore in medio, genu, tibizeque apice nigro circumdatis ;

posteriores furfurosi, femoribus solum nigro cinctis. Ab-

domen decoloratum. Sete albicantes, bene nigro annu-

latee.

Long. corp. 5 9; al. 10-12; set. 16 mm.

Hab.—Christchurch, New Zealand (Fereday). The

penis has no appendages.

Leptophlebia scita.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 21, 21a.)

Baetis scita, Walk. 1853.

Subimago, y.s.s. Ale vel nigricantes, vel fuliginose,

nervis atris (transversalibus marginibus saturatioribus) ;

antica maculd pallida in medio: apud punctum nodale

subcoste hujus, et in apice quoque ares marginalis, tres

vel quatuor nervorum transversalium ferme inter se

approximant, ita ut maculas saturatiores duas faciant.

TRANS. ENT. soc, 1871.—PART I. (MARCH.) a

82 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Imago, v.s.s. 6. Thoracis tergum fuliginosuin. Ale

vitrine, cano tinctee, nervis fuscis: antica macula basal,

marginibus angustis nervorum ares marginalis, ma-

culisque super costam duabus quasi in subimagine, fuscis.

Posteriores pedum lutei, femoribus in mediis obscure

punctatis, tarsisque fuscescentibus. Abdomen saturate

fuscum, apicibus segmentorum saturatioribus ; segmento-

rum intermedia singula maculis brevibus trigonalibus

duabus juxta bases, flavescentibus. Sete albz, vel cer-

vinee, juncturis subinde saturatis. Forceps luteus.

@ mari simillima.

Long. corp. ¢ 6, al. 7-8 mm.

Hab.—New Zealand.

Leptophlebia Taprobanes.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 22, 22a.)

Baetis Taprobanes, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. Corpus atrum. Pedum antici

atri, posteriores picei. Ale vitrine, pallidissime fusco

tinctee, nervis fuscis: antica areis marginali atque sub-

marginali fuscis, apicibus saturatioribus, nervis transver-

salibus in apice illius simplicibus rectisque. Abdominis

juncture pallida. Sete fuscee.

Long. al. ¢ 12, set. super 30 mm.

Hab.—Ceylon.

Leptophlebia annulata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 23, 23 a, b.)

Potamanthus annulatus, Hag. 1858.

Subimago, s.s. g. “ Alis nigro fumosis.” (Hag.)

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. Tergum thoracis fuscum. Alea

vitring, nervis atris: anticee juxta costas fusco tincte,

nervis transversalibus numerosis curvatis simplicibusque

in areis marginalibus apices versus. Pedes saturate fusci.

Abdomen testaceum, apicibus segmentorum fuscis.

Sete: fuliginosee.

Long. corp. ¢ 9, al. 10, set. 85 & 87 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde, Ceylon.

on the Ephemeride. 83

Leptophlebia femoralis.

Potamanthus femoralis, Hag. 1858.

Subimago, s.s. “ Alis griseo fumatis.”

Imago, s.s. ‘ Capite thoraceque fusco-eneis, pedibus

pallidis, femoribus cingulo medio nigro, setis brunneis,

abdomine albido, apice fusco, segmentis omnibus apice

fusco marginatis ; alis vitreis, venis fuscis.” (Hag.)

Long. set. ¢ 33, 9 15; exp.al. ¢ 2? 18 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde.

Leptophlebia dislocans.

Ephemera dislocans, Walk. 1860.

Imago, v.s.s. 9. Ale vitrine, vix lacteo tincte,

nervis umbrinis: horum transversales in medio atque

apud costam alee anticee fusco marginati, et apicem arew

marginalis versus recti, obliqui et fere simplices. Pedes

luteo-picei, femoribus annulis in mediis piceis. Abdomen

luteo-castaneum, apicibus segmentorum piceis: segmen-

tum singulum striga obliqua indiscreta laterali. Sete

piceee.

Long. al. Q 6, set. 18 mm.

Hab.—The Cape of Good Hope.

Leptophlebia auriculata, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, PI? IV. fig. 24, 24a. Ala postica, fig.

2:4b.)

Imago, v.s.s. ¢., Picea, thorace atro. Ale vitrine,

nervis atro-piceis; nervi transversales in apice arew

marginalis simplices; ala postice piceo tincte, spatio

subcostali incolorato. Pedum antici picei; posteriores

rufo-picei: femora omnia atro-bicincta (vel? bimaculata).

Abdomen juncturis saturatioribus, et setis vel atro-piceis,

vel corvino-atris.

Long. corp. ¢ et al. 9, set. 20 mm.

Hab.—Graham’s Town.

The form of the hind-wing rather closely resembles

that of one of the less oblique species of Avicula or Perna.

The name has reference to the excessive dilatation

of the marginal area, which reminds one of the “‘ears”’

of such shells.

84, Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Menograph

Series 2. Sp. typica, L. Colombie.

Subimago, ?. Tarsorum antici quinque-articulati,

posteriores quadri-articulati: articulorum penultimus cze-

teris brevior, duo priores zquales. Als posticee minimez.

Seta tres equales.

Leptophlebia Colombic.

Ephemera Colombie, Walk. 1853; Palingenia Colombie,

Hag. 1861.

Subimago, v.s.s. 2. Thoracis tergum luteum. Ale

semi-opacee, sub-testacew; nervi transversales apicales

aree marginalis anticee numerosi, simplices, obliqui, et

curvati. Pedum antici saturate caryophyllei, tarsis luteis ;

posteriores lutei. Abdomen supra castaneum, infra

lutescens; segmenta intermedia singula apicibus stri-

gisque lateralibus obliquis atris. Setee fuliginosee, junc-

turis et mediis articulorum saturatioribus.

Long. corp. 2 10, al. 15, set. 9 mm.

Hab.—British Colombia.

Perhaps Baetis tessellata, Hag., is to be referred to

this species (see Heptagenia tessellata) .

Series 3. Sp. typica, D. marginata.

Nympha reptans, laminis branchialibus pinnati-partitis

peene filiforme-dissectis. (Pict.)

Alis erectis, setisque lateralibus a media varis, stans

super pedes omnes, subimago quiescit.

Imago. Pedibus anticis elevatis et divergentibus mas

dormit. @ Tarsi ferme quadri-articulati (rarissime arti-

culus quintus tibiz adnatus obscure indicatur): articu-

lorum penultimus ceteris brevior, duo priores subzequales ;

ungues postici dissimiles. Sets tres equales vel sub-

zequales. Pedum forcipis numerus articulorum a duobus

ad quatuor pro specie variat, primus tamen semper long-

issimus est. Coste alarum posticarum haud excise.

Leptophlebia marginata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 25, 25 a,b. Ale antice

pars, Pl. II. fig. 2a.)

Ephemera marginata, Lin. 1767. EH. viridescens, Fourc.

1785. HH. procellaria, Schwarz, Nomencl. Résels. Insect.

on the Ephemeride. 85

Belust. ZL. stigma & talcosa, Ste. 1835-6; Potamanthus

stigma & talcosus, Pict. 1843-5. P. marginatus, Hag. 1863.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ala fuliginosz vel corvine, venis

flavescentibus, transversalibus anguste nigricante mar-

ginatis; postice bases versus vel in toto pallidiores,

nervis transversalibus apud margines terminales nigri-

cantibus.

Imago, v.v.s. 4. Oculi piceo-hepaticolores, vel rufo-

fuliginosi. Tergum thoracis fuscum vel aterrimum,

politum. Ale vitrine, nervis fuscis: antica apicibus

aree marginalis et arez submarginalis fuscis vel sub-

fuliginosis. Pedum antici nigro-picei, tarsis cinereis:

posteriores picei vel fusco-lutei, tibiis interdum brunneis,

tarsisque plus minusve fuliginosis. Abdomen ferme

supra fuscum vel fusco-piceum, juncturis flavescentibus,

infra fuliginosum, juncturis pallidis, et maculis satura-

tioribus sub plexus nervorum: interdum tamen seg-

mentorum 2-7 cinerea sunt, lineis spiracularibus satu-

ratis, maculisque sub plexus nervorum luteis, atque

cetera sunt fusco-picea. Sete atra, vel cinereex, junc-

turis vix obscuratis. Forceps fuliginosus vel testaceus.

@ vel mari similis ; vel abdomine supra piceo, apici-

bus segmentorum saturatioribus, et subtus atr o-fuliginoso,

tibiis anticis testaceis. Processus ventralis penultimi

segmentorum incisus est.

iiongr. corp: 6-12, 9 6-11; al. @«7-11,9. 7-12;

set. ¢ im. 12-20, subim. 9; set. 9 im. 8-16 mm.

Hab.—Temperate and Arctic Europe and America.

In England it appears in April, May, July, September

and October, and frequents rivers.

Leptophlebia helvipes.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 26, 26 a-c. Ala postica,

fig 26d.)

Ephemera helvipes, dispar & submarginata, Ste. 1835-6.

Potamanthus Geerii, helvipes, dispar, & submarginatus,

Pict. 1843-5. Baetis reticulata, ? Burm. 1839. Cloeon

euliciformis, Walk. 1853.

Subimago, v. v. s. Ale cervine vel nigricantes,

nervis transversalibus late nigro-marginatis ; paucitas

horum in medio ale anticz maculam transversalem circa

coste medium pellucidam facit.

86 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Imago,v.v.s. Oculisupra saturate purpureo-brunnei,

subtus fusci. Tergum thoracis aterrimum, politum. Alze

vitrine, crassioribus nervorum furfurosis. Pedum antici

atri, tarsis corvinis; posteriores picei, tibiis tarsisque

fuliginosis. Abdomen supra fusco-piceum, juncturis in-

termediis pallidis; subtus fusco-fuliginosum, maculis

obscuris sub plexus nervorum. Forceps furfurosus.

Sete testacez, Juncturis saturatis.

? simillima mari, processu ventrali penultimi seg-

mentorum acute exciso.

Long. corp. ¢ 10-11, ¢ 9-11; al. g 10-11, 2 10-13;

set. ¢ im. 12 & 13-14 & 16, subim. 7; set. 9 im. 9-13,

subim. 9 & 10-10 & 12 mm.

Hab.—Great Britain ; Germany ; and Switzerland (Pict.

Mus.). In May, June, July, and August, frequenting

streams, rivers and lakes. The name is applicable to

dried specimens.

Leptophlebia castanea.

Potamanthus castaneus, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v.s. ‘“ Preecedenti similis, macula tamen

cordiformi super mesothoracis apicem, et juncturis tho-

racis, pallidis.”’

Imago, ¢ v. s. ‘Oculi latericio-rubentes; aliter

feminee similis.”

9. “Tergum thoracis striga pallida longitudinali.

Pedes setzeque pallide fusci.” (Pict.)

Long. corp., al., et set. 2 circa 8 mm.

Hab.—A small stream near the marsh of Villeneuve, at

the upper end of the Lake of Geneva, in July. The body

of this species is of a maroon-brown colour. (Pict.)

Leptophlebia (?) Kruepert.

Potamanthus Krueperi, Stein, 1864.

Imago, s. s. @. Picea, pleuris pedibus abdo-

mineque aurantiacis, alis posticis lete fuscis, setis cauda-

libus flavescentibus obscure annulatis. Ale antice apud

costas vix flavescentes.”

Long. corp. ¢ 10°5, exp. al. 12 mm.

Hab.—Greece. In the collection of the Berlin Museum.

on the Hphemeride. 87

Leptophlebia Picteti.

Potamanthus marginatus, Pict. 1845-5 (nee Lin.).

Subimago. ‘* Ale obscure grisew; antica area margi-

nali pallide fusca.”

Imago, 6. “Oculi obscuri. Tergum thoracis atrum,

prothorace fusco. Ale vitrine, nervis longitudinalibus

rufescentibus ; anticee areis marginalibus et submargina-

hibus fuscis. Pedes rufescentes; tibiz singule basibus

lineisque ex eis*productis, et punctis prope apices, atris.

Abdomen acute fuscum supra, apicibus segmentorum

saturatioribus, preecipue latera versus. Forfex setaeque

fuscee.”

2 “mare saturatior.” (Pict).

fionecorp.'"¢ 8, 9 7; set. ¢ 10, 2 subim. 9; al.

exp. ¢ 18, 9 20 mm.

Hab.—Near Geneva, principally in October.

Leptophlebia prisca.

Potamanthus priscus, Pict. 1854.

Exp. al. 13 mm.

Species in electro.

Leptophlebia cincta.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 27.)

Ephemera halterata (?), Fab. 1777. HE. cincta, Retz.

1783. EH. nigra, Fourc. 1785. EH. inanis, Gmel. 1790-3.

E. albipennis, Fab. 1793. EH. hyalinata & vitrea, Zet. 1840.

Potamanthus cinctus, inanis, halteratus, hyalinus, &

Cloe fuscata, Pict. 1843-5. Cloeon fuscata, Walk. 1853.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale atre, nervis obscure flaves-

centibus. Thorax piceus vel atro-piceus. Abdomen (¢)

cinereum, apicem versus fuscum, apicibus segmentorum

obscure canis.

Imago, v. v.s. . Oculi supra fuliginosi, infra atri.

Tergum thoracis aterrimum, politum. Ale vitrine,

crassioribus nervorum vix électro-coloratis. Pedes albi

vel cretacei, femoribus anticis saturatioribus, et tibus

tarsisque sub-testaceis. Abdomen rarissime in_ toto

fuscum; plerumque tamen segmentorum 2-7 vitrea sunt,

88 Rey. A. EH. Haton’s Monograph

apicibus interdum lutescenti suffusis, lineis spiracularibus

in parte atris, et plexubus nervorum rubiginosis; atque

apicalia sunt fusca vel picea, juncturis vel flavescentibus

vel rufescentibus. Sete forfexque albicantes; hc vel

tri- vel quadri-articulata, et basin versus nigricana.

@. Nervicrassi alarum picei. Pedes seteeque testacei,

posterioribus tarsorum albicantibus. Abdomen saturate

fusco-piceum, juncturis flavescentibus, et processti penul-

timi segmentorum late exciso.

Long. corp. d 2 7-8; al. ¢ 2 7-9; set. dim.8 &9

-8 & 11, subim.9 & 7; set. 9 im. 7 & 10-8 & 11 mm.

Hab.—Northern and Temperate Europe, in streams and

rivers. June, July, and August.

Leptophlebia vespertina.

Ephemera vespertina, Lin. 1758. LH. albipennis, Retz.

1783. Baetis fusca, Burm. 1839. Cloe vespertina, Oul.

1867.

Subimago, s.s. ‘ Nigra, alis posticis albis. Est inter

minores generis sui, toto corpore et alis anticis nigris;

sole ale postice albz, quibus ab omnibus generis sul

speciebus manifeste differt.

Hab.—Copiose in Smolandii ad fluvium Sathaella.”

(Lin. abstract.)

Leptophlebia mollis, n. sp.

(Forceps maris, Pl. IV. fig. 28.)

Cloe mollis, Hag. 1861; not described.

Subimago, v.s.s. Alze pallidissime brunnescenti-albe.

Abdomen femine fuscum.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Tergum thoracis vel luteo-piceum,

vel saturate fuscum. Pedum antici testacei, tarsis albis ;

posteriores pallidissime testacei. Alee vitreze. Segmen-

torum abdominis 2-7 alba, juncturis obscuris; cetera

luteo-picea.

Long. corp. ¢ 6, 9 5; al. 6 7, 2 7:5 mm.

Hab.—West Farm, New York.

Series 4. Sp. typica, LD. cupida.

Imago. Ale postice, et genitalia, eis specierum in

serie precedenti similes. Setarum media manifeste

on the Hphemeride. 89

brevissima. ‘Tarsorum posteriores quinque -articulati ;

articulorum primus obsolescens, tibiz adnatus, secundus

tertio subeequalis, quartus ceteris brevior ; itaque sepe

quadri-articulati esse videntur.

Leptophlebia cupida.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. IV. fig. 29, 29a; femine, fig. 29b.

Alee anticee pars, Pl. II. fig. 2b.)

Ephemera cupida, Say, 1823. Palingenia concinna, pal-

lipes, Baetis debilis & (?) EH. hebes, Walk. 1853. Pota-

manthus cupidus, concinnus, & Baetis ignava, Hag. 1861.

Subimago, v. s. s. Ale pallide nigricantes; ‘ pos-

teriores apices versus vix saturatiores.” (Say.)

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. ‘*Oculi supra fuscescentes, infra

atri” (Say, e v. s.). Tergum thoracis piceum vel fuscum.

Alze vitrine, nervis et apice aree marginalis antice pal-

lide fusco-piceis. Pedum antici fuscescentes vel vix

rufescentes, tarsis atris; posteriores testacei, tarsis ni-

gricantibus. Abdomen piceum, “supra juncturis, linea

longitudinali in medio strigisque brevibus duabus apud

basin segmenti singuli, pallidis” (Say, e v. s.). Sete

fuscee, juncturis obscuris.

? . Alee vitrine, vix lurido tinct. Processus ventralis

penultimi segmentorum emarginatus.

Long. corp. $ 8, 9 10; al. ¢ 8, 2 11; set. ¢ subim.

14, 9 15 mm.

Hab.—Nova Scotia (Walk.); the Ohio River near Cin-

cinnati (Say); Washington (Hag.), &c.

Leptophlebia nebulosa.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 1, 1a.)

Palingenia nebulosa, Walk. 1853; Potamanthus nebu-

losus, Hag. 1861. Pot. odonatus, Walsh, 1862.

Imago ¢, v. s. s. Thoracis tergum piceum. Ale

vitrinz, nervis piceis; antice singule nebulis magnis

rotundatis apices versus subfuscescentibus. Pedum an-

tici fusci, posteriores testacei. Abdomen supra piceum,

subtus subtestaceum. Sete testacez, juncturis piceis.

Long. corp. ¢ 10, al. 10-11, set. 30 & 6 mm.

Hab.—S. Martin’s Falls, River Albany, Hudson’s Bay

(Walk.); Illinois (Walsh).

90 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Series 5. Sp. typica, L. fusca.

Nympha reptans. Segmentorum abdominis 1-7 brau-

chifera; laminz branchiales simplices, pinnati-partite

quidem, sed peene filiforme-dissectee. Palpi maxillares

tri-articulati ; superioris primus articulorum largus ceter-

isque conjunctim longior, secundus tertio subzequalis ;

inferioris ultimus articulorum penultimo longior.

Imago. Posteriorum alarum margo costalis valde ex-

cisus. Tarsorum posteriores quinque-articulati ; articulo-

rum primus obsolescens, tibiz adnatus, brevis, secundus

longior, tertius et quartus secundo sensim breviores ;

ungues dissimiles. Artus forcipis primus articulorum

aliis longitudine subzequalis.

Leptophlebia fusca.

(Ala antica, Pl. II. fig. 2c. Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig.

2,2a. Ala postica, fig. 2b.)

Ephemera fusca, Curt. 1834. H. minor & Baetis cin-

gulata, Ste. 1835-6. Potamanthus brunneus, fuscus, minor

& Cloe cingulata, Pict. 1843-5. Cloeon cingulata, Walk.

1853.

Subimago, v. v.s. Als cinerex, nervis piceis. Tho-

rax piceus: tibiarum antic subfuliginose, posteriores

cervine.

Imago, v.v.s. 6. Oculi saturate fuliginosi. Tergum

thoracis aterrimum politum. Alze vitrine, nervis fuscis.

Pedes brunneo-olivacei, femoribus et tibis anticis piceis.

Abdomen fusco-piceum, juncturis flavescentibus, setis et

forcipe fuscis (in s. 8. saturate fulvis).

@ mari similis, tarsis anticis pallidis. Setze fuliginose,

juncturis vix saturatioribus. Processus ventralis penul-

timi segmentorum late excisus.

Long. corp. ¢ 5-7, 26-7; al. d 9 6-7; set. 6 8 & 12

-11 & 12, @ 8-9, subim. 6 mm.

Hab.—Great Britain; Interlaken; Mt. Saleve (Pict.).

In brooks and rivers. The end of May to August.

A pair of branchial plates is omitted from Professor

Pictet’s figure of the nymph, which i is, in other respects,

a good representation of it.

on the Hphemeride. 91

Leptophlebia modesta.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 3, 3a, b.)

Potamanthus modestus, Hag. 1864.

Subimago, v.s.s. Alarum anticze murine, postice

cervine.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thoracis tergum piceum vel ater-

rimum. Ale vitrine, venis testaceis vel fuscis ; postice

vix lacteo tinctee. Pedum antici picei ; posteriores satu-

rate fusci. Abdomen fusco-piceum. Sete virescenti-

grisez vel fuliginose, juncturis atris.

. Processus. ventralis penultimi segmentorum

bifidus.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. ¢ 6-7; al. $ 2? 8-9; set. g circa

10 mm.

Hab.—Carinthia (Zeller MS.) ; Corsica (Hag.).

Dr. Hagen’s diagnosis of the subimago seems to suit

IL. modesta ; but the specimen associated with the types

of the imago in M. de Selys Longchamps’ collection is

Baetis Rhodani, 2? subim.

Genus [—

—| :

Imago diptera, cauda triseti ; Leptophlebiw approxime

affinis.

[————] inanis.

Potamanthus inanis ||, Pict. 1848-5.

Imago, s. s. “Caput nigrum; thorax acute fuscus.

Alze vitreze, nervis tenuibus, fuscis; vix griseo tincte,

sed apud costas obscuriores, et ad bases flavescentes.

Pedes fusci. Abdomen albidum, apice fusco ; segmenta

pallida, singula maculi magni fusca utrmque. Set

grisez, nigro-punctate.” Pict.)

Hab.—Brazil. (Pict.)

In the Vienna Museum.

Professor Pictet thought that the forceps had little

lamellar limbs: but he was not sure that the shape of

these might not have become changed after death.

92 Rey. A. EH. Eaton’s Monograph

Genus T'rRIcoRYTHUS.

(Ala mesothoracica, Pl. II. fig. 3.)

Ephemera, Sav.1817. Ceenis, Pict. 1843-5. Tricorythus,

Etn. 1868.

Imago. Ale duz; sete tres equales; oculi maris

integri. A nervis alarum facillime e Ceni distinguitur.

Tricorythus varicauda.

Cenis varicauda, Pict. 1843-5.

Imago, s.s. Pallide luteus, vel ochraceus; oculis

maculaque in vertice atris: suturis (?) mesothoracis dorsi

quoque atris; alis vix flavescentibus, costis subcostisque

paulo saturatioribus; et pedibus luteis vel ochraceis

griseo variis. Segmentorum abdominis quinque apicalia

punctis singulis ventralibus nigris. Set albz, anguste

nigro annulate.” (Pict.)

Long. corp. ¢ 4, set. 9; exp. al. 10 mm.

Hab.—Upper Egypt.

Genus CNIS.

Cenis, Ste. 1835-6. Brachycercus, Curt. 1834. Ma-

crocercus, Westw. 1836. Oxycypha, Burm. 1839. Ceneus,

Agassiz, Nomenclat. *

(Ala antica, Pl. IT. fig. 4.)

Nympha fodiens. Segmentorum abdominis 1, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7 branchifera: laminarum antice minute, erecte ;

secundee magne, crassz, ceeteras tegentes ; relique tenuis-

sim, semiovate, bene fimbriatz, imbricate, graduatim

minores a fronte retrorsum; omnes simplices. Pedes

femoribus vel compressis vel gracilibus secundum

speciem. Caput vel inerme, vel cornibus tribus fronta-

libus armatum. Palpi maxillares tri-articulati: supe-

rioris proximus articulorum largus, tertio longitudine

* Brachycercus being a sexual name gives place to Cenis. Cenia,

Newman, 1838, is a genus of Diptera. Conis was changed by Poseidon

into an invulnerable man named Ceneus, one of the Lapithe. He being

buried alive by the Centaurs in the course of the famous battle, was

thereupon transformed into a bird. She somehow seems to have regained

her original form; for Virgil narrates the meeting of Mneas with Cenis

in Hades, in Ain. vi. 448.

ER Sec

on the Ephemeride. 93

eequalis; secundus brevior: inferioris primus articulo-

rum multo largissimus, ceteris conjunctim longitudine

subzequalis ; tertius conicus, secundo semi-zequalis.

Pedibus anticis depressis, alis duabus late expansis

(fere nunquam erectis), et setis tribus subqualibus

pubescentibus parallelis, subimago quiescit.

Imago. Caput et prothorax transversi; oculi remoti,

integri. Ale duz magne, in longitudinem marginium

terminalium ciliate. Tarsi quinque-articulati (intermedi

interdum tamen quadri-articulati): posticus proximo ar-

ticulorum brevissimo, tibizque adnato, secundo tertio

et quarto brevibus subzqualibus, quinto ceteris lon-

giore: anticorum ungues breves, obtusi, conformes ;

posteriorum ungues dissimiles. Sete tres subsequales,

internodis (in ¢) longis. Forcipis pedes inarticulati.

Ovivalvuli femina caret. Latera sezmentorum abdominis

plus minusve retro producta.

These insects live a very short time in their adult state.

They fly in dense crowds over gentle streams, rivers and

lakes, early in the morning and late in the day, at the

beginning and end of summer. Dr. Hagen says that, in

Prussia, the English species sometimes appear “in such

quantities that objects near the water are covered an

inch thick, and in the Curische Nehrung they are used

to feed the pigs.” With us, they are less abundant.

Cenis macrura.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 4.)

Ephemera brevicauda, Fab. (§ sub. ?) 1798. C. ma-

erura & interrupta, Ste. 1835-6. [H. pusilla, Zet. MS.,

1840.] OC. grisea, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale griseo vel nigricanti tincte,

preecipue costas versus. Set nigricantes.

Imago, v. v.s. Caput nigrum, articulis antennarum

proximis duobus, et junctura capiti-thoracici, cervinis.

Prothorax corvinus: meso- et meta-thoraces aterrimi

nitentes. Pedes ¢ femoribus atris, tibiis tarsisque pal-

lide nigricantibus: ¢ femoribus anticis griseis, posticis

cretaceis. Abdomen 6 griseum, latera versus corvi-

num; segmentorum intermedia singula supra lineis in

mediis longitudinalibus, punctis duobus apud bases duo-

94 Rey. A. EH. Eaton’s Monograph

busque subtus circa media, pellucidis: ? abdomine

nigricante, latera juncturasque versus ochraceo, et subtus

virescenti-griseo tincto. E lateribus segmentorum api-

calium setulz tenues pallide breves producuntur. Setz

obscure, juncturis nigricantibus.

Long. corp. ¢ 4-5, 2 6; al. ¢ 4-5, 2 7; set. ¢ im.

14 & 15-15 & 16, subim. 3; set. 9 im. 3°5 & 2, subim.

3mm.

Hab.—England; Switzerland ; Voslau (Brauer); Lap-

land (Zet.). May to September.

Spiders’ webs and painted surfaces have provided me

with dried specimens in widely distant localities. They

fly at Reading from about 4°45 until 8 or 9 a.m., and

again in the cool of the afternoon and evening, in June.

I have seen subimagines with the dew thick upon their

wings, resting on a flood-gate of the canal at 5.30 a.m.

in June; and when the sunlight reached them, they

immediately began to moult.

Cenis (?) chironomiformis.

(?) Brachycercus chironomiformis, Curt. 1834; (?) Canis

chironomiformis, Ste. 1835-6. Oxyeypha lactea, Burm.

1839; Coenis lactea, Pict. 1843-5. (?) C. halterata, Hag.

1863.

(Margine membrane subgenitalis ¢ anguste furfuroso,

haud nigro veluti in precedente.)

Imago, v. s.s. Caput et thorax brunneo-lutescentes,

nervis alarum obscuris. Pedes albicantes, femoribus

anticis brunneis. Abdomen supra griseum, apicibus

segmentorum et linea longitudinali media albicantibus,

“‘strigisque indistinctis e spiraculis atris ; venter flaves-

cens” (Hag.). Sete sub-fuscescentes; forceps et margo

membrane subgenitalis anguste furfurosi absque macula

basali obscura.

ong. “corp. 9 45°exp. ali” 9°73 set. 2) Uimam \

(Pict:).

Hab.—England (Curt.) ; Prussia (Burm., Hag.); Lake

of Geneva (Pict.). In May.

The only specimens I have seen of this insect are in

M. Pictet’s collection: one (or more) of them is in

spirits. The penis of this specimen was very similar in

form to that of a dried specimen of C. macrura.

on the Hphemeride. 95

Cenis dimidiata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 5. Ala antica, Pl. IT. fig. 4.)

Ephemera minima, (?) Lin. 1747. E. horaria, (?) Lin.

1758. Brachycercus minima, (?) Curt. 1834. Ccenis dimi-

diata, brevicauda & pennata, Ste. 1835-6. Cloe horaria,

(?) Ramb. 1842. 2H. albipennis, Atk. 1843. Cloeon horaria,

(?) Walk. 1853.

Subimago, v. v.s. Alz cane, areis et marginali et

submarginali fuliginosis pene usque ad apices. Setz

albze, pubescentes.

Imago, v. v. s. Caput et prothorax fusci, obscuri,

antennis albis, oculis atris. Meso- et meta-thoraces picei.

Pedum antici sub-fuliginosi, femoribus griseis ; posteri-

ores cani, puncto atro ante femoris apicem. Abdomen

vel in toto album vel cretaceum ; szpissime tribus seg-

mentorum apicalium tantum cretaceis, et ceteris griseis,

juncturis lineaque longitudinali media cretaceis. Ventris

segmenta sexpe griseo bi-punctata sunt. Genitalia et

setze albee.

Long. corp. go 3-5, ? 4; al. ¢ 4, 2? 3; set. dGI8SS&

13, subim. 3 & 2°5-3 & 3°53; sat. 9 38, subim. 2°25 mm.

Hab.—England; Visp in the Valais; Belgium (De

Selys Mus.); Prussia (Hag.); Moscow (Oul.). From

June to August.

Cenis diminuta.

C. diminuta, Walk. 1853. CO. amica, (?) Hag. 1861.

(Genitalia maris eis preecedentis parum similia.)

Imago, v. s.s. Thorax luteus: alis vitreis, costas ver-

sus nigricantibus; pedibus albis, femoribus anticis cin-

erascentibus. Segmentorum abdominis anteriora sub-

virescenti-grisea, posteriora cretacea ; segmentis singulis

ad latera lineis obscuris longitudimalibus. Genitalia et

setz albe.

Long. corp. g 2°5, al. 3, set. 10°5 mm.

Hab.—S. John’s Bluff, East Florida (E. Doubleday) ;

Pennsylvania (Hag.).

The posterior femora of C. amica, Hag., have each a

superior subapical black spot; but I suspect it will be

found to be identical with C. diminuta, Walk.

96 Rey. A. H. Haton’s Monograph

Cenis hilaris.

Ephemera hilaris, Say, 1839; C. hilaris, Walk. 1853.

Imago,v.s.?. “Thorax pallide fulvus, alis costas versus

obscuris. Abdomen album, segmentis apicalibus singulis

utrinque punctis tribus fuscis.” (Say, abstract.)

Long. corp. 2 mm.

Hab.—Indiana. September. (Say.)

Ceenis perpusilla.

C. perpusilla, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v.s.s. &. “ Testacea; ale antice sub-cine-

rez: pedes setzeque albi.”’

Long. corp. 2°5, set. 12, exp. al. 6 mm.

Hab.—Ceylon. (Walk.)

Cenis discolor.

Oxycypha discolor, Burm. 1839; Canis discolor, Pict.

1843-5 ; Cloeon discolor, Walk. 1853.

Subimago,? s.s. ‘‘Supra cinerea, subtus pallida; alis

infuscatis, costa obscuratiori ; his filamentisque analibus

longius pilosis.”

Long. corp. 2 2°5 lin.

Hab.—Cape of Good Hope. (Burm.)

Cenis argentata.

C. argentata, Pict. 1845-5.

(Confer cum C. macrura et C. dimidiata.)

Subimago, s. s. ‘ Caput et thorax grisei, fulgore

argenteo; prothorax vix clarior. Ale grisez, costis

subcostisque nigris. Pedum antici grisei; posteriores

albi. Abdomen basin versus griseum, apice albo. Setz

albee, vix nigro annulatis.” (Pict.)

Long. corp. ? 4, exp. al. 8, set. 3 mm.

Hab.—Sicily. (Pict.)

lm ay, a

on the Ephemeride. 97

Ceenis oophora.

O. oophora, Pict. 1843-5.

Fusca; alis albicantibus, pedibus flavescentibus. (Pict.)

Long. corp. ? im. 4, exp. al. 11 mm.

Hab.—Sardinia. (Kollar.)

It is just possible that this species may be rediscovered,

and determined by comparison with Pictet’s figure ; but

the chances are small,

Cenis luctuosa.

(Forceps maris, Pl. V. fig. 6.)

(?) Brachycercus Harrisella, Curt. 1834; (?) C. Harri-

sella, Ste. 1835-6. Oxycypha luctuosa, Burm. 1839. Hphe-

mera brevicauda, Blanch. 1840. Cents luctuosa, Pict.

1843-5. O. halterata (nympha), Etn. 1868.

Subimago, v.v. s. Caput et prothorax corvini; meso-

et meta-thoraces atri. Ale nigricantes, nervis obscuris.

Pedes albi, interdum vix fumati; antici tibiis tarsis et

femorum apicibus anthracinis. Abdomen pallide fulvum,

setis atris.

Imago, v.v.s. ¢ & 9. Caput et thorax picei, sutu-

ris et lateribus fuliginosis; tarsis anticis fuliginosis, et

pedibus posticis nigricantibus juncturis atris. Abdomen

rufo-fuliginosum, linea obscura brevi ad latera utrinque

in singulis juncturis: forcipe setisque griseis vel nigri-

cantibus.

Long..corp. ¢ 6°5, 2 5-7; al. dg 6, 2 5°5; set. J

im. 25, subim. 4; set. ? subim. 3 & 4mm.

Hab.—Somersetshire and Berkshire ; Berlin (Burm.) ;

Lake of Thun (Pict.).

The name of this species probably has reference to the

pale oblong spots near the bases of the long bristle-like

processes from the lateral edges of segments 7, 8 & 9.

These bristles are found in all the English species, and

are longer in the imago than in any other stage of de-

velopment.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—parT 1. (MARCH.) H

98 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Genus HpHEMERELLA.

(Ala antica, Pl. IT. fig. 5.)

Ephemera, p., Pod. 1761; Potamanthus, p., Pict.

1843-5 ; Potamanthus, restrict., Hag. 1849 ; Hphemerella,

Walsh, 1862.*

Nympha reptans, laminis branchialibus complexis qua-

tuor. Seementorum branchiifera sunt 4, 5, 6 et septimum.

Palpi maxillares tri-articulati: superiores brevissim1, ulti-

mis articulorum penultimis longioribus ; inferiores duo-

bus prioribus articulorum subeequalibus, ultimis brevis-

simis.

Hi Leptophlebice subimaginis habitus similis est.

Imago. Ale quatuor; sete tres, subeequales; oculi

maris sub-partiti. Tarsi quinque-articulati; articuloram

proximus obsolescens, tibiee adnatus, secundus tertio sub-

eequalis, quartus brevior: ungues dissimiles. Pes forcipis

tri-articulatus, secundo articulorum longissimo. Lamina

? ventralis e penultimo segmentorum ; sed ovivalvula

caret.

Ephemerella ignita.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 7. Ala postica, fig. 7a.)

Ephemera ignita, Pod. 1761. LF. erythropthalma, Schr.

1798. H. fusca, diluta, apicalis, rufescens, rosea & Baetis

obscura, Ste. 1835-6; Potamanthus erythropthalmus, api-

calis, dilectus, roseus & erythrocephalus, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v.v.s. Alarum antice saturate cinerex,

posticee albo-cervinee.

Imago, v. v. s. @. Oculi supra brunneo-carnei, vel

carnei ; partes inferiores olivacee vel flavo-olivaceze. Tho-

racis tergum fuscum, Ale vitrine, crassioribus nervo-

rum longitudinalium cum punctis nodalibus vix piceis,

vel electro-coloratis. Pedes peene sulphurei: antici tibus

lutescentibus, et tarsis obscure testaceis; posteriores

tarsis testaceis. Abdomen supra saturate fuscum, lateri-

bus juncturisque ochraceis; subtus hepaticoloratum, in-

terdum fuliginoso tinctum, lineis brevibus divergentibus

* Ephemerella, Schimp (1850, or 1860), is a genus of the Phascei, an

order of the Acrocarpous section of the Mosses.

on the Hphemeride. 99

duabus punctisque sequentibus duobus apud basin singuli

segmenti obscure indicatis. Sete fuliginose, juncturis

saturatioribus ; forceps testaceus.

?. Oculi flavo-olivacei. Tibiz antice testaces.

Puncta nodalia alarum eis maris distinctiora. Processus

ventralis penultimi segmentorum retusus.

Long. corp. ¢ 8-9; al. 6 9, ? 10-11; set. ¢ 10 &11-

12 & 11, subim.8&7; set. 9 8&9,subim.7 & 9 mm.

Hab.—Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland; also

Madrid (H. Pict. Mus.). Frequents streams and rivers.

June to September.

Ephemerella gibba.

Potamanthus gibbus, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago. ‘ Ale saturate grisez, apud bases lutes-

centes.”

Imago, v.s. 6. “Oculi acute rubri. Corpus fusco-

rubiginosum ; alis vitreis ; pedibus fulvis, anticis femori-

bus tarsisque fuscescentibus ; setis fulvis, juncturis atris.”

2. “ Pallidior mare; capite thoraceque fulvis, illo

atro-punctato, punctis super verticem confluentibus,

hoe punctis parvis duobus fuscis in medio prothoracis

tergi, et pluribus commissurarum dorsalium mesothoracis

fuscis. Abdomen rufescens, supra punctis obscuris duo-

bus in medio segmenti singuli.” —(Pict.)

Long. corp. ¢ 6-7, ? 7; set. ¢ 9, subim. 7; set. ?

8, subim. 7; exp. al. ¢ 15-16, ? 21 mm.

Hab.—A streamlet near Villeneuve, at the head of the

Lake of Geneva ; in July (Pict.).

Ephemerella cenea.

Potamanthus ceneus, Pict. 1848-5.

Subimago. ‘“ Alze grisez ; antica basi subcoste fulva.”

Imago, 2. ‘Caput et oculi fulvi, macula supra

fusca. Prothorax maculi utrinque fusci; mesothorax

eneus, politus. Al vitrez, iridicolorate ; nervorum

longitudinales fulvi, transversales grisei. Pedes fulvi,

juncturis tarsisque nigricantibus. Abdomen olivaceo-

fuscum ; sete testacez, juncturis atris.” (Pict.)

H 2

100 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Long. corp. ? 6, set. 8; exp. al. 18 mm.

Hab.—Mt. Saleve. (Pict.)

Professor Pictet’s figure of the nymph of H. cenea

closely resembles a dark variety of the nymph of HL.

ignite.

Ephemerella invaria.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 8, 8a.)

Baetis invaria & fuscata, Walk. 1853. Hphemerella

excrucians, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago, v.s.s. Alee seteeque pallide nigricantes.

Imago, v.s.s.- ¢. ‘ Oculi supra flavi, infra fusci”’

(Walsh, ev. s.). Tergum thoracis saturate luteum, vel

fascum. Ale vitrez, vix flavee apud costas; crassioribus

nervorum lutescentibus vel fuscis. Pedum antici picei ;

posteriores testacei, tarsis subtestaceis, apicibus junctur-

isque fuscis vel rubiginoso-luteis. Abdomen supra piceum

vel fuscum, vel rubiginosum, apicibus segmentorum satu-

ratioribus ; subtus testaceum. ‘‘ Sete albicantes, juncturis

fuscis.”” (Walsh.)

? mari simillima.

Long. ¢ 5°5-7°5, 2? 5°5-6°5; set. ¢ 11-13, 9 10-1275;

exp. al. ¢ 145-20, ? 15-19 mm.

~ Hab.—Nova Scotia (Walker) ; Iinois (Walsh).

HLphemerella consimilis.

EH. consimilis, Walsh, 1862.

Imago, g. ‘“ Pedes immaculati ; antici apicibus tibia-

rum et proximis articulorum tarsalium fuscis.” (Walsh.)

Mr. Walsh describes the prescutum of the mesothorax

as being “half as long again as wide,’ and the meso-

thorax itself as “being 4-5 times as long as wide:”

whereas, in the preceding species, the one ‘is scarcely

longer than wide,” the other is ‘“‘scarcely three times

longer than broad.”

Long. corp. ¢ 5, set. circa 5; exp. al. 14 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh).

on the Hphemeride. 101

Genus Bzrisca.

(Ala antica, Pl. IT. fig. 6.)

Baetis, p., Say, 1839; Beetisea, Walsh, 1862.

Nympha reptans: “adulta laminis branchialibus ex-

ternis caret ; primum tamen segmentorum laminam dupli-

cem obtectam utrinque habet. A thorace segmentorum

abdominis quinque priorum dorsa obteguntur, elementis

tergi thoracis confluentibus et retrorsum productis ;

itaque ne quidem ale, neduin thoracis commissure, videri

possint ” (Walsh). Caput a fronte bicorne; labium

integrum; maxillarum inferioris palpus bi-articulatus,

ultimo articulorum singulariter bifido, et peene chel-

formi.

Imago. Al quatuor; setarum media abortiva; oculi

maris “integri. Tarsi quinque-articulati ; articulorum

primus longus, tibiz adnatus, secundus primo brevior

sed tertio squalis, quartus paulo brevior; ungues

dissimiles. Pes forcipis tri-articulatus ; aiten aru

primus longus, secundus longissimus, et tertius brevissi-

mus. Femina ovivalyuli caret; processus ventralis

penultimo segmentorum excurrit.

Beetisca obesa.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. V. fig. 9.)

Baetis obesa, Say, 1839; Beetisca obesa, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago, v. s. s. Ale corvine, lineolis brevibus

transversalibus numerosis pellucidis; antica semifascis

transversalibus pellucidis duabus, una e costa prope api-

cem, alteraque basispropriore. (Say & Walsh.)

Imago, v. s.s. o&. Rufo-fusca. Ale vitrez, nervis

tenuissimis ; “‘anticarum costv subcostzeque lutescentes.”

Pedes testacei ; antici gamboso tincti, juncturis et ulti-

mo articulorum tarsalium obscuris ; posteriores ultimis

articulorum quoque obscuris. Prosternum prominens,

bidentatum. Abdomen subtus, preecipue apicem versus,

rubido-albo tinctum: segmentorum penultimum linea

longitudinali in medio ventris fusca. Sete pubescentes,

albze, juncturis obscuris.

102 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

@ simillima mari, processu ventrali segmentorum

penultimi breviter inciso.

Long. corp. ¢ 7-8, ¢ 6-8; set. d 9 im. 6-7, 9

subim. 4-5; exp. al. ¢ 20-22, 9 22-25 mm.

- Hab.—Illinois (Walsh) , Indiana (Say); and California.

Genus CLOEON.

(Ala mesothoracica, Pl. IT. fig. 7.)

Ephemera, p., Lin. 1761; Cloeon, Leach, 1815 ; Cloe,

p., Burm. 1839; Cenis, p., Walk. 1853; Chloeon, Lub-

bock, 1863 ; Clocopsis, Htn. 1866.

Nympha natans, laminis branchialibus utrinque sep-

tem: laminarum septima simplex, cetere bilamellares,

omnes marginibus integris. Palpi biarticulati, articulis

longitudine equalibus; inferiores depressi, apicibus

obliquis; superiores tenuissim1, filiformes.

Alis erectis setisque divergentibus subimago quiescit

stans in pedes omnes.

Imago. Ale seteeque due. Oculi maris_ bipartiti,

parte superiori sub-turbinata. Tarsorum _posteriores

quadri-articulati ; articulorum primus multo longissimus,

tibiz adnatus, secundus brevis, tertius brevissimus ;

ungues dissimiles. Pes forcipis tri-articulatus, secundo

articulorum longissimo: penis occultus. Ovivalvula

femina caret.

Cloeon dipterum.

(Forceps, Pl. V. fig. 10.)

Ephemera diptera, Lin. 1761. LE. striata & annulata,

Miill. 1776. Cloeon pallida, Leach, MS., 1815. H. margi-

nata, Gor. & Pritch. 1829. C. marmoratum & obscurum,

Curt. 1834. C. cognatum, dimidiatum, virgo & consobri-

num, Ste. 1835-6. Oloe diptera, Burm. 1839. Cloe affinis,

Ramb. 1842. Cloe virgo & cognata, Pict. 1843-5.

H. culiciformis, Fonscol. 1846. C. diptera & cognata,

Walk. 1853. Chloeon dipterum, Lubbock, 1863-5; Cloeop-

sis diptera, p., Ktn. 1866.

Subimago, v.s.s. Alze pallide cervino tinctee.

Imago, v. v. s. ¢&. Oculi turbinati sub-carnei,

vel rufo-hepaticolorati; inferi atro-picei. Tergum tho-

on the Ephemeride. 103

racis aterrimum, politum. Ale vitrine, nervis quasi

atris ; horum tres priores incolorati: nervule apicales

aree marginalis rect, pauce (3-5), atque vix oblique.

Pedum antici femoribus vel albidis apicibus cretaceis,

vel virescenti-cinerascentibus, singulis maculis pree-apica-

hbus rufescentibus, et tibiis tarsisque vel cinereis vel

carbonariis: posteriores albicantes vel cretacei, macula

femoribus spe indiscreta, atque juncturis et articulis

terminalibus tarsorum (proxima juncturarum excepta)

atris. Abdomen supra atro-piceum, juncturis ochraceis ;

infra saturate cinereum, maculis rubiginosis duabus in

juncturis albidis singulis. Set albe, juncturis in vices

late atris. Forceps cinerascens, proximis articulorum

fuscis.

Var. ¢. v. s. s. Parvum. Segmentorum abdominis

2-7 grisea, apicibus strigaque trigonali ex els utrinque

producta rubiginosis: tria apicalia. picea.

Hab.— Belgium.

?. Corpus luteum. Oculi olivacei, obscure bicincti.

Capitis vertex rufescente bi-strigatus. Ale vitrine, areis

et marginalibus et submarginalibus tribusque priori-

bus nervorum longitudinalium electro-coloratis, nervis

transversalibus inclausis albis; ceterl nervorum atri:

horum plures transversalium incrassati. Pedum antici

gambosi, tibiis tarsisque testaceis juncturis obscuris:

posteriores femoribus fere electro-coloratis, cmgulis et

preapicali et apicali rufescentibus, tibus tarsisque testa-

ceis, unguibus et 2-4juncturarum obscuris. Setz rubido-

albze, juncturis in vices late atris.

lone; corp: ¢.o-10;. 9 11; al: ¢ 6-11, 9 105 set.

6 13-20, subim. 14; set. 9 12-15, subim. 12 mm.

Hab.—Kurope, and the Madeiras. In tranquil waters:

May to July.

I have seen female specimens of two species of Cloeon

very closely related to O. dipterum ; one inhabits N. W.

India, the other Knysna, 8S. Africa.

Oloeon simile.

(Forceps, Pl. V. fig. 11.)

CO. simile, Etn. 1870.

Subimago, v. v. s. Als murine, apud costas et bases

vix subflavescentes, nervis furfurosis. Setee fusco-atree.

Oculi turbinati maris subolivacei.

104 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Imago, v. v.s. &. Oculi turbinati olivacei, vel satu-

rate virescenti-sulphurei; inferiores atro-picei, vel atro--

virentes. Thoracis tergum vel aterrimum, vel fuscum,

politum. Ale vitrine ; subcosta tertiusque nervorum

longitudinalium substraminei; nervule apicales arez

marginalis multe, sparsim conjuncte. Pedes olivacei;

posteriores tarsis saturatioribus; antici tibiis viridi-

griseis vel atro-virentibus, et tarsis griseis vel atris.

Abdominis dorsum piceo-fuscum; venter cinereus, apice

vix fulvescenti. Forceps virescenti-albus. Setee rubido-

albze, juncturis rubescentibus.

? mari simillima. Oculi atri. Caput circa ocellos

castaneum, lineis vel strigis duabus concoloribus super

verticem: carina facialis tuberculos duos parvos piceos

utrinque habet. Abdomen supra luteo-fuscum, juncturis

luridis, et tracheis subcutaneis obscuris ; subtus oliva-

ceum, ultimo segmentorum penultimoque stramineis.

Pedes viridi-olivacei, tibiis tarsisque saturatioribus.

Long. corp. 6 9, 2 103 al. d 8, ¢ 10-11; set. 1g

14-15, subim. 9; set. 2 10-14, subim. 7-9 mm.

Hab.—Near Retford, in Nottinghamshire, and at Quy

Fen, near Cambridge. September and October ; in still

water.

The name simile has reference to the similarity between

the sexes.

Cloeon subinfuscatum.

Otoe subinfuscata, Ramb, 1842.

Subimago, v.s.s. 9. Ale saturate corvine, nervis

longitudinalibus luteis: nervule apicales are marginalis

multe (circa 12) sparsimque divise. Thorax lutescens,

pedibus luteo-luridis. Setee juncturis obscuris.

Long. corp. ? 9, al. 11 mm.

Hab.—Provence. (Rambur.)

Cloeon obscurum.

Cloe obscura, Ramb. 1842: nee Curt.

Subimago, 9, v. s.s. Ala murine, nervis luteis: ner-

vule apicales are marginalis simplices (circa 8 in nu-

mero), et irregulariter flexuose. Thorax rufo-testaceus:

pedes testacei.

on the Ephemeride. 105

Long. al. 9, corp. 6 mm.

Hab.—France ; probably near Paris.

The name will not obtain, Curtis having previously

applied “ C. obscurum” to C. dipterum, subim.

Oloeon russulum.

(Forceps, Pl..V. fig. 12.)

Ephemera russula, Mul. 1776. Cloeon dimidiatum,

Curt. 1834. H.culiciformis & striata (?), Blanch. 1840.

Cloe pumila, Ramb. 1842. Cloe dimidiata, Pict. 1843-5;

Cloeon dimidiata & Coeenis sinensis, Walk. 1853; Chloeon

dimidiatum, Lubbock, 1863 & -5. Cloeopsis diptera, var.,

Htn. 1866 & -7.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ales cane; apud crassiores ner-

vorum spe gramineo tinctz. Sete cinerascentes.

Imago, v. v. s. Variabilissima colore: ¢ maribus

Cloeonis similis, Baetis binoculati atque varietatum hujus,

? uxoribus Centroptili luteoli et Baetis binoculati colore

similis.

Var. 1. ¢. Cloeoni simili similis. Oculi turbinati

fuhiginosi. Tergum thoracis aterrimum politum. Pedes

pallide virescenti-flavescentes, tarsis nigricantibus. Ab-

domen saturate fuscum, juncturis flavescentibus, tracheis-

que subcutaneis atris. Sete albs, juncturis rufescenti-

bus. Forceps albus, apices versus nigricans.

Hab.—Reading (Berkshire), and near Cambridge; as

well as in the Valais Canton, near Visp.

Var. 2. &. Baeti binoculato similis. Oculi turbinati

sulphurei vel flavi; inferiores fuliginosi, vel virescenti-

cinerel, vel etiam glauci. Tergum thoracis fuscum, vel

fusco-luteum, vel saturate furfurosum vel testaceo-furfu-

rosum. Alze vitrine ; nervule apicales areee marginalis

(6-8) oblique, interdum sparse furcatze prope subcostam.

Pedum antici virescenti-grisei, tibiis tarsisque griseis vel

canis; posteriores cretacei vel sulphurei, tibiis tarsisque

obscure albis. Segmentorum abdominis 3-6 vel 7 alba,

vix aut ne vix quidem lurido suffusa; cetera supra fur-

furosa vel fusca, juncturis ochraceis, et subtus plus aut

minus ochracea. Sete albz, juncturis interdum anguste

obscuris.

106 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Hab.—Temperate Europe, and North China. This is

the normal form.

Var. 38. femine similis, oculis thoraceque eis

3 var. 2 similibus.

?. Oculi cesii, vel atro-fuliginosi. Capitis vertex

strigis longitudinalibus rufescentibus duabus. Thoracis

tergum furfurosum, vel pallidissime sub-flavum, inter-

dum aterrimum, politum : mesothoracis apex nonnunquam

gramineus. Ale vitrine, bases versus sepe gramineo

tinctee. Femora gramineo-alba, tibiz tarsique albi,

ultimis articulorum cinereis. Abdomen supra vel pallide

sub-olivaceum, vel furfuroso-album: segmentorum 2-7

singula macula parva in medio dorsi, duabus apud junc-

turam apicalem, et linea curvata indiscreta utrinque,

furfurosis; striga juxta spiracula cum tracheis subcu-

taneis atris. Interdum abdomen est fuscum. Sete albe.

Hab.—Temperate Europe.

Long. corp. ¢ 5-9, 2 7-8; al. 3 2 7-8; set. o

13-15, subim. 9; ? 10-12, subim. 6-8 mm.

Hab.—Temperate Europe and Northern China.

Oloeon mendax.

Cloe (C) mendax, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago. “ Alee sub-opace, vix nigricanti tincte.”

Imago, ¢. ‘ Pallide rubiginosum, alis vitreis. Pedes

pallidi, apicibus tarsorum obscuris. Abdomen subtus

pallide virescens, pellucidum, apicem versus opacum.”

?. “Supra pallidior; interdum thorace sub-vires-

centi.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 4, 2 45; set. 9 9, ¢ subim. 8;

exp.al. ¢ 2? 14 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Iinois. (Walsh.)

Cloeon dubium.

Cloe (C) dubia, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago. “ Alz fumate, nervis longitudinalibus

saturatioribus.”

Imago, 3%. Baeti propinquo similis (q. ef.) sed

minor. Macule laterales in abdominis medio pellu-

on the Hphemeride. 107

cide. Inter nervos longitudinales, super marginem

terminalem, nervulee forsan duplices sint.” -

2. “ Caput, thorax et abdomen pallide rubiginosi:

horum primum et ultimum interdum obfuscata. Femur

anticum plus aut minus rubiginosum. Venter pallide

flavus vel virescens.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. 6 2°5-4, 9 2°5-3; set. ¢ 4°5-5°5, Q 3-

4-5; exp.al. ¢ 9 8-10°5 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Hlmois. (Walsh.)

Oloeon vicinum.

Cloe vicina, Hag. 1861.

Imago. 6. Oculi rufi. Thorax fulvus, alis vitreis.

Pedes albicantes ; antici bases versus fulvi. Abdomen

album, pellucidum, tribus segmentorum apicalium supra

fuscis, et setis albidis.”

9. “ Corpus cretaceum, alis vitreis, pedibus et setis

albicantibus.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. ¢ 4; set. ¢ 10, 9 6; exp. al. 10 mm.

Hab.—Washington. (Hag.)

Cloeon vitripenne.

Ephemera (Cloe) vitripennis, Blanch. 1851.

Imago. ‘“ Fusco-virescens ; capite supra flavo-rufo;

alis vitreis, iridicoloratis ; pedibus pallide testaceis, me-

diis et apicibus femorum plus aut minus fuscis.” (Blanch.)

Hab.—Chili. (Blanch.)

Genus CENTROPTILUM.

(Ala antica, Pl. II. fig. 8.)

Ephemera, p., Mil. 1776; Cloeon, p., Ste. 1835-6; Cloe,

p-, Burm. 1839; Baetis (A), Htn. 1868; Centroptilum,

Etn. 1869.

Nympha agilis; segmentorum abdominis 1-7 laminis

branchialibus simplicibus et integris, ovatis vel obovatis.

Maxillarum superiores palpis quadri-articulatis ; articu-

lorum primus brevissimus, secundus longus et ceteris

conjunctim equalis. Maxillarum inferiores dimidiis labii

108 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

subsequales, acute subtrigonales, anguste, palpis biarticu-

latis, depressis, articulis longitudine subzequalibus ; arti-

culorum ultimus apice late expanso subtruncato.

Hi Cloeonis subimaginis habitus admodum similis est.

Imago. Cloeoni simillima; nisi alis posticis binervatis,

et per-angustis.

Centroptilum luteolum.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 13, 18a.)

Ephemera luteola, Mil. 1776. (?) H. albipes & parvula,

Scop. 1763. Cloeon ochraceum, hyalinatum & albipenne, Ste.

1835-6. Cloe halterata, Burm. 1839. Cloe translucida,

ochracea, hyalinata & albipennis, Pict. 1843-5; Cloeon

translueida, halterata, hyalinata, albipennis & ochracea,

Walk. 18538. Cloeon bioculatum, Hag. 1863. Baetis lu-

teolus, Etn. 1868; Centroptilum luteolum, Ktn. 1869.

Subimago, v. v.s. Als vix fumatz, vel pallidissime

flavescentes. Femora ochracea, tibiz cineres, tarsi

nigricantes ; setee fumatz vel cinerez.

Imago, v.v.s. 6. Oculi turbinati acute vel saturate

carnei, inferiores sub-olivacei. Tergum thoracis fuscum,

vel piceum, vel atrum. Alee vitrez, nervis longitudinali-

bus vix flavescentibus. Pedes cretacei, tibus tarsisque

plus aut minus canis vel fumatis. Segmentcrum abdo-

minis sex priora vitrina, alba, maculis apud apices

utrinque furfurosis, aut apicibus in toto furfurosis ; ceetera

furfurosa vel fusca, juncturis ochraceis; venter pallidus,

apice testaceo. Sete forcepsque albze. j

2. Dorsum furfurosum, vel testaceum, vel fusco-

olivaceum; venter pallidus. Oculi olivacei, vel atro-

virentes, vel atri. Thoracis tergum umbrinum, vel

fusco-olivaceum. Pedes vel virescenti-flavi, tibiis tar-

sisque pallide virescenti-griseis, vel flavescentes, tibiis

tarsisque canis. Abdomen interdum ochraceo-furfuro-

sum ; trachez subcutanez saturatiores.

Long. corp. ¢ 6-7, 2? 5-6; al. ¢ @ 6-7; set. ¢ 10-

14, subim. 7; set. 9 subim. 6-9 mm.

Hab.—Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain and Nor-

way (Alten); also Hudson’s Bay territory. April to No-

vember.

on the Ephemeride. 109

Centroptilum pennulatun.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 14, 14a.)

O. pennulatum, Htn. 1870.

Imago, v.v.s. ¢. Oculi turbinati carnei, inferiores

olivacei vel atri. Prothorax supra nigricanus vel furfu-

rosus; meso- et meta-thoraces fusci vel furfurosi. Ale

vitrine. Femora alba, apicibus cretaceis; tibiz tarsi-

que albi, ultimis articulorum vix cervinis. Segmentorum

abdominis 2-6 vitrina, alba, juncturis vix castaneis ;

cetera supra castaneo-rubiginosa, infra ochro-leuca. Se-

te forfexque albz.

9. Oculi virescenti-grisei: vertex capitis flavus,

striga lata longitudinali saturate rubiginosa. Tergum

thoracis furfurosum. Pedes cani, femoribus subcretaceis,

vel gamboso-albidis. Abdomen supra pallide virescenti-

griseum, juncturis pallidioribus ; infra pallidum immacu-

latum: striga dorsalis longitudinalis in medio, apices

segmentorum, et macule trigonales ex his ad latera pro-

rectz, lutescentes. Seta pedesque eis maris similes.

one. corp. 6 8-95.92 8; al. g 2 8; set. ¢ 14-17,

¢ 11 mm.

Hab.—The Manifold, lam, Staffordshire, and Grazely,

near Reading. August to October.

Centroptilum lituratum.

Ephemera culiciformis, Scop. 1763 (nee Lin.). Cloe

litura, Pict. 1843-5; Cloeon litura, Walk. 1853.

Subimago. ‘“ Alz pallide fuscescenti-grisex. Setze

fuscee.”

Imago, 3. “ Oculiturbinatisulphurei. Tergum thoracis

fuscum, strigi atré im medio a fronte retrorsum sed non

metathorace tenus attinente: metathorax punctis atris

duobus. Ale vitrine ; pedes flavescentes. Abdomen rufo-

fulvum, apicem versus obscurius, maculis lateralibus.

Sete flavescentes, juncturis atris.”

9. Flava, oculis nigris, leis rufescentibus parvis

duabus super mesothoracem, et maculis paucis lateralibus

super abdomen.” (Pict.)

Long. corp. ¢ 8, set. 12, exp. al. 17 mm.

Hab.—Mt. Saleve (Pict.); in the autumn.

110 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Centroptilum stenopteryx, 0. sp.

(Ala postica et forceps, Pl. V. fig. 15, 15a.)

Subimago, v. s. s. ¢. Ale vix fumate. Thorax

ochraceus, pedibus testaceis, tarsis pallidis.

Imago, v.s.s. 6 uxori simillimus, corpore furfuroso,

setisalbis. [Oculi turbinati olim rufescentes ? ].

Long. corp. ¢ 4, 2 45; al. d 4, 2 5°; set. d @

5-6 mm.

Hab.—Carinthia (Zeller’s MS.).

Genus BaAgEtis.

(Ala antica, Pl. II. fig. 9.)

Ephemera, p., Lin. 1746; Baetis, Leach, 1815; Cloe,

p., Burm. 1839; Brachyphlebia, Westw. 1840; Cloeon,

p., Walk. 1853.

Nympha agilis, laminis branchialibus simplicibus, in-

tegris, ovatis vel obovatis, septem utrinque. Palpi

maxillares biarticulati, articulis longitudine subeequalibus ;

superiores teretes ; inferiores proximis articulorum sub-

cylindricis, apicalibus depressis et spathulatis atque lat-

eraliter incisis. Dimidia labu acuta, subulata, maxillis

angustiora.

Subimago inter quiem Cloconi vel Centroptilo simulat.

Imago. Oculi maris partiti, superioribus dimidiorum

sub-turbinatis. Ales quatuor; posteriores minime, ob-

long, costi unidentati, atque tribus vel duobus nervo-

rum longitudinalium, quorum secundus vel simplex vel

divisus sit. Seta due (B. ferrugineus tamen tertiam

mediam brevissimam habet). Forcipis artus quadri-

articulati, penultimis articulorum plerumque longissimis.

Femina ovivalvuli caret; nisi fugax sit.

The species mostly inhabit rivers and streamlets.

They appear principally in spring and early in the au-

tumn; but the exact period depends upon climate.

Monstrous specimens seem to be more frequently met

with in the autumn than in the spring; they throw

much light upon the morphology of insects in general.

on the Hphemeride. 111

Baetis binoculatus.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 16, 16a.)

Ephemera bioculata, Lin. 1758. #H. fuscata, Lin. 1761.

Li. diaphana, Mil. 1776. HE. flava, Schr. 1776. HH. lutea,

Foure. 1785. EH. notata, Gmel. 1790-3. LH. euliciformis,

p. Ol. 1791. #. striata, (?) Walck. 1802. Baetis

bioculatus, Leach, 1815; B. bioculata, Sam. 1819. JB.

flavescens (subim.) & autwmnalis (monstr. 3), Curt.

1834. B. fuscata, (?) Ste. 1855-6. Brachyphlebia bio-

culata, Westw. 1840; Cloe bioculata & autumnalis, Pict.

1843-5 ; Cloeon bioculata (excl. g.), autumnalis & striata,

(?) Walk. 1853. Cloeon pumilum, Hag. 1863; Cloe

punila, Oul. 1867.

Subimago, v.v.s. Alarum antic fumate, posteriores

cretacez. Pedes maris femoribus virescenti-albis, tibiis

fumatis, et tarsis nigricantibus; femina femoribus anticis

viridi-olivaceis, maculis obscuris singulis apices versus,

atque posterioribus femorum et tibiarum stramineis,

tarsis omnibus corvinis. Sete fumatee.

Imago, v.v.s. &. Oculi turbinati citrini, vel acute

flavi ; inferiores flavo-, vel atro-virentes.

Var.1. g. Thoracis tergum furfurosum, vel fuscum,

vel atro-piceum. Ale vitrine, fulgore auroreo, et nervis

albicantibus. Pedes cretacei; tibie tarsique antici

atque ungues fumati; posteriores tibiarum albe. Seg-

mentorum abdominis 2-6 vel 7 cretacea vel flavo-alba,

spiraculis rubiginosis vel atris ; ceetera supra vel furfu-

rosa, vel fusca, vel fusco-olivacea, juncturis sulphureis ;

subtus ochracea vel saturate olivacea. Sete albz.

2 et Var. 2 g. Corpus pallide fuscum, vel fusco-

olivaceum: subtus olivaceum. Oculi feminz atri, vel

atro-picei. Alze vitrine, nervis fuscis, vel piceis. Pedum

antici femoribus fusco-olivaceis, tibiis et tarsis fuligi-

nosis, vel tibus corvinis et tarsis anthracinis: posteriores

femoribus prasino-olivaceis, obscure apud apices maculatis,

vel annulatis atque tarsis griseis. Abdomen supra apici-

bus segmentorum anguste fuscis, et tracheis subcutaneis

vel atris vel fuliginosis: segmentum singulum subtus

apud basin punctis obscuris duobus. Sete vel virescenti-

albze, vel albee atque bases versus nigricantes, vel cinereze

atque bases versus corvine vel atre.

Long. corp. ¢ 6-8, 2? 4-7; al. g 6-8, 9 6-7; set.

3d 12-14, subim. 7-10, 2 10-12, subim. 8-10 mm.

112 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Hab.—Great Britain, France, Switzerland (Pict.),

Germany, Moscow (Oul.), Scandinavia, and Hudson’s

Bay (Dale Mus.). May to October. In rivers.

Mr. Walker’s specimen from N. America (g., Brit.

Mus. Cat.) represents a distinct and undescribed species.

Baetis debilis.

Cloeon debilis, Walk. 1860.

Imago ?, v. s. s. ‘ Fulva, capite nigro, abdomine

testaceo; setis pedibusque albis, alis vitreis, venis albis.”

Long. corp. 5, exp. al. 12 mm.

Hab.—Hindostan. (Walk.)

This species can only be identified by the type.

Baetis scambus.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 17, 17a.)

B. scambus, Etn. 1870.

Subimago, v. v.s. . Ale setaeque cinerex. Pedes

cretacei vel virescenti-albi, tibuis tarsisque cinereis. For-

ceps cretaceus.

@. Femora maculis vix discretis, subapicalibus cinereis.

Imago, v. v. s. ¢. Oculi turbinati caryophyllacei,

vel caryophyllaceo-fuliginosi: inferiores nigri. Tergum

thoracis aterrium vel piceum: alze vitrine. Pedes

cretacei vel virescenti-grisei; tarsis anticis fumosis, pos-

terioribusque tibiarum et tarsorum virescenti-albis, junc-

turis et unguibus vix obscuris. Abdominis segmentorum

quatuor apicalia fusca, cetera alba vel virescenti-alba,

fusco vix suffusa. Sete albze, prioribus juncturarum vix

obscuris.

@. Corpus olivaceo-fuscum. Ale vitrine, nervis atro-

piceis. Oculi saturate olivacei. Femora olivacea ; tibiae

tarsique saturate fumosi. Seta quoque fumosz, junc-

turis vix obscuris.

hong. corp. ¢ 6, 9 6:5; al. 6 0; 9 72 Setencamics

subim. 7; set. 2 9-10, subim. 5 mm.

Hab.—Ashbourne and Norbury, Derbyshire. June and

September.

on the Hphemeride. 113

Baetis finitimus, noy. sp.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 18, 18a.)

Imago, v. v.s. ¢. Oculi turbinati fuliginosi. Tho-

racis tergum aterrimum politum. Ale vitrine, nervis

pellucidis. Pedes albi; antici femoribus cretaceis. Ab-

domen album, tribus segmentorum apicalium fuscis.

Seta forcepsque albze.

Var. v. v. s. Abdomen fuscum. Pedes virescenti-

grisei, femoribus apices versus punctis singulis paulo

obscuris, et tarsis anticis fere griseis.

2, v.v. 8. Oculi atro-fuliginosi. Pedes virescenti-

nigri, tibus et tarsis saturate albis. Abdomen piceum,

apicibus segmentorum obscuratis. Sete albe.

Long. corp. ¢6 ? 5; al. ¢ 2 6; set. J 12-16, 9

7 mm.

Hab.—The streamlet by the Oratory, on the right-

hand side of the Val Montjoie, between Contamines and

Notre Dame de la Gorge. July.

Bactis atrebatinus. .

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 19, 19a.)

B. atrebatinus, Etn. 1870.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale dg cinerew: 2 saturate fu-

matz. Pedes ¢ olivacei vel saturate virescenti-grisei,

posterioribus tibiarum cinereis et lineis singulis brevibus

externo-basalibus atris: tarsorum antici atri, posteriores

saturate nigricantes juncturis atris, omnes ultimis articu-

lorum piceis: 9 tarsis rufo-piceis, juncturis atris. Sete

é corvine, 2 atro-picez.

Imago, v. v. 8s. ¢. Oculorum turbinati rufo-hepati-

colorati, inferiores fuliginosi. Tergum thoracis aterri-

mum politum. Ale vitrine; antice tribus prioribus

nervorum longitudinalium virescenti-griseis. Pedum an-

tici femoribus atro-virentibus, tibiis atris singulis maculis

pallidis sub-apicalibus, et tarsis saturatissime cinereis ;

posteriores saturate olivacei, apicibus tibiarum tarsorum-

que virescenti-griseis. Segmentorum abdominis 2-7

fumata, singula lineis brevibus. punctisque obscuris duo-

TRANS, ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT I. (MARCH.) I

114 Rey. A. HE. Eaton’s Monograph

bus dorsalibus, subtus strigis atris duabus, atque junc-

turis virescenti-albis; cetera fusco-picea, Juncturis

flavis. Sets rubido-albz, juncturis obscuris. Forceps

fumatus.

? mari simillima; secundo articulorum antennalium

fere omnino rubiginoso, vertice capitis inter ocellos

piceo; abdomine vel luteo- vel rufo-piceo, juncturis

ochraceis, setisque fuliginosis.

Long. corp. ¢ 7, 2 8; al. 6 6-7, 9 8; set. g 11-13,

subim. 8°5; set. 9 8-10, subim. 7°5 mm.

Hab.—The river Kennet near Reading, Berkshire; in

October.

Baetis Rhodani.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 20, 20a.)

Cloe Rhodani, Pict. 1848-5; Cloeon Rhodani, Walk.

1853. Cloe maderensis, Hag. 1865.

Imago, v. v.s. &.Oculi turbinati lateritio-fuliginosi.

Thoracis tergum aterrimum politum. Ale vitree, nervis

vix fuscis. Pedum antici tibiis tarsisque nigricantibus ;

posteriores pallidiores, femoribus saturate virescenti-

griseis vel ‘pallide olivaceis, et tarsis vel atris vel nigri-

cantibus. Dorsum abdominis fusco-virescenti-griseum,

juncturis ochraceis vel canis, et tribus segmentorum

apicalium saturatioribus; subtus saturate virescenti-gri-

seum, segmentis singulis seepe strigis brevibus divergen-

tibus prope bases, punctisque sequentibus duobus, nigri-

cantibus. Sete virescenti-grisee, juncturis fuliginosis

vel rubiginosis.

Var. ¢ im. v. v. s. Oculi turbinati carneo-hepati-

colorati ; inferiores saturate virescenti-grisei. 'Thoracis

tergum luteum, postice nigro maculatum. Pedes cretacei,

unguibus atris; antici gamboso tincti, tarsis fumatis.

Ale vitrine, nervis virescenti-griseis, subcostis radiisque

bases versus atris. Abdomen album, quatuor segmen-

torum apicalium luteis; segmenta pallida, apicibus luteo

marginatis, marginibus ad latera antice productis. For-

ceps albus. Seta albee, juncturis rubiginosis.

Hab.—In the same stream as B. finitimus (p. 113).

? im. mari simillima. Tergum thoracis interdum

brunneo-fuscum. Abdomen opacum.

on the Ephemeride. 115

_ Subimago, v. v.s. ¢. Ale cinerew. Pedum antici

virescenti-grisei, maculis singulis crescentiformibus fe-

morum apices versus obscuris, tibiis nigricantibus, et

tarsis atris; posteriores cretacei, tibiis fumatis, et tarsis

atris. Sete atro-corvine.

Long. corp. g 5°5-9, 9 6:5; al. g 5°5-9, 2 12; set.

6 13-19, subim. 10°5; set. 9 16 mm.

Hab.—Dovedale, Derbyshire, and Dorset; Geneva and

Contamines; Corsica (Bellier); and Madeira (Wollaston),

April to October.

The Wollastonian specimens ticketted 69 & 70 appear

to me the same species as the others.

Baetis pheops.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 21, 21a.)

Ephemera bioculata (?), Fourc. 1785. H. testacea (?),

Gmel. 1790-3. Baetis vernus (?), Curt. 1834. B. culici-

formis, (pheopa), striata, verna, & H. dubia, Ste. 1835-6.

Cloe verna, Pict. 1843-5; Cloeon verna, Walk. 1853.

Baetis phoeops, Etn. 1870.

Subimago, vy. v.s. Ale fumatze vel murine. Femora

testaceo- vel prasino-grisea, vel etiam virescenti-alba,

maculis singulis obscuris v-formatis prope apices; tibiz

fumatze, apicibus anticarum atris; tarsorum antici atri,

posteriores cinerei juncturis atris. Sete forfexque

fumatee.

Imago, v. v.s. o. Oculorum turbinati fuliginosi, in-

feriores corvini. Tergum thoracis aterrimum vel piceum,

politum, in exemplari recens nato fuscum. Ale vitrine,

nervis longitudinalibus sub-fuscis, et fulgore hyacinthino.

Pedum antici femoribus sub-olivaceis, tibiis tarsisque

canis, macula rotundata obscur’ prope apicem cujusque

illarum; posteriores femoribus vel virescenti-griseis vel

prasino-cretaceis, tibiis albis, et tarsis canis. Abdomen

vel dorso fusco et ventre cinereo; vel dorso piceo-fusco,

juncturis canis ; vel virescenti-griseo, tribus segmento-

rum apicalium saturate fuscis. Sete albz vel fumatee.

Pes forcipis duobus prigribus articulorum canis, et ceteris

albis.

? mari simillima. Oculi atro-fuliginosi, vel atri.

Tergum thoracis vel atrum, vel piceum, vel piceo-fuscum.

116 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Pedes femoribus olivaceis; crura cana vel anthracina

juncturis atris, sed antica saturatiora. Setz albze, cor-

vines bases versus.

Long. corp. ¢ ¢ 6-8; al. ¢ 6-7, 9 7-93 set. 3 14-

16, subim. 5; set. 2 10-12, subim. aan.

Hab.—Great Britain, and Norway (Hammerfest and

Alten). It mostly inhabits streams and rivulets, and

appears in England in May, June, September and Octo-

ber.

Baetis tenazx.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 22, 22a.)

B. tenaz, Etn. 1870.

Imago, vy. v. 8s. @. Oculorum turbinati saturate fali-

ginosi, inferiores nigro-fuliginosi. Tergum thoracis ater-

rimum, politum. Ale vitrine, nervis albido-pellucidis.

Pedes femoribus olivaceis, anticis crurum cinereis, et

posterioribus fumosis juncturis vix obscuris. Abdomen

fusco-olivaceum, juncturis pallidis, et setis albis. Pes

forcipis albicans, proximo articulorum interdum obscu-

rlori.

¢ mari simillima.

Long. corp. ¢ 6-8, al. 7, set. 14-16 mm.

Hab.—Ashbourne Green, Derbyshire; in rills and

streamlets. June.

Baetis buceratus.

(Forceps et ala postica. Pl. V. fig. 23, 23a.)

B. buceratus, Etn. 1870.

Subimago, v. v. s. Alarum antice fumate, posticas

pallidiores. Pedum antici femoribus olivaceis, tibiis nigri-

cantibus, et tarsis atris; posteriores vel olivacei tarsis

et maculis pre-apicahbus femorum crescentiformibus

atris, vel femoribus saturate cretaceis, tibiis fumosis, et

tarsis atris. Sete pices. Pes forcipis primo et secundo

articulorum pallidis, reliquis fumosis.

Imago, v. v. 8s. @. Oculi turbinati saturate fuligi-

nosi, vel fuliginoso-hepaticolorati. Tergum_ thoracis

on the Ephemeride. 117

aterrimum. Ale vitrine, tribus prioribus nervorum

longitudinalium vix obscuris. Pedum antici saturate

olivacei, cruribus atro-corvinis, vel nigricantibus maculis

pre-apicalibus tibiarum atris, et juncturis tibio-tarsalibus

albicantibus: posteriores vel femoribus et tibiis olivaceis

atque tarsis fumosis, vel tarsis atro-corvinis juncturis

atris; vel cruribus pallide nigricantibus, juncturis vix

obscuris ; vel cruribus albis, juncturis atris. Abdomen

supra vel fusco-piceum, juncturis pallidis ; vel cum 2-6

segmentorum virescenti-griseis, et interdum apicibus,

lineolis divergentibus duabus dorsalibus, atque strigis e

spiraculis, obscuris: infra nigricans, juncturis albidis, seepe

duobus segmentorum apicalium ochraceis. Pes forcipis

primo et secundo articulorum olivaceis, et ceteris plus

aut minus nigricantibus; aut primo solum olivaceo.

Setze nigricantes, seepe albicantes apices versus.

I neglected to describe the female.

Long. corp. ¢ 8-9, al. 8, set. 10-16 mm.

Hab.—The Holybrook and Kennet, near Reading.

April and May. +

Baetis amnicus, nov. sp.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 24, 24a.)

Imago, v.v.s. 6. Oculiturbinati saturate fuliginosi ;

inferiores atro-fuliginosi. ‘Thoracis tergum aterrimum,

suturis pallidis. Alee vitrine, lurido tinctz, nervis atro-

olivaceis; anticz areis marginalibus apices versus paulo

obscuratioribus. Pedum antici saturate viresceuti-grisel,

tibis tarsisque fumatis vel nigricantibus; posteriores

femoribus imterdum vix ochraceo-tinctis, genubus ru-

fescenti strigatis, tibiis fere cervinis, et tarsis obscuris

juncturis nigris. Abdomen supra fuscum, juncturis vix

pallidis; subtus in majore parte cinereum. Setz albee

vel cinerez, bases versus juncturis obscuris. Forceps

ater, apices versus saturate fuliginosus.

- 9. Ale vitrine, nervis virescenti-griseis. Pedes

virescenti-grisei vel olivacei, tibiis tarsisque nigricantibus.

Sete nigricantes.

Long. corp. ¢ 9-10, 2 7; al. ¢ 10, 2 8; set. g 26,

9 13 mm.

Hab.—Barberine, Nant Bourant, and Mottet, at an

altitude of some 4560 feet. July. In mountain torrents,

whence the specific name.

118 Rey. A. HE. Eaton’s Monograph

Baetis alpinus.

Cloe alpina, Pict. 1843-5 ; Cloeon alpina, Walk. 1853.

Imago, 3. “Oculi rufi. Tergum thoracis saturate

fuscum. Als vitrez, nervis fulvis, paucis distinctioribus

in ares marginalis apice. Abdomen fuscum, juncturis

albidis ; setee albze, juncturis fuscis.” —(Pict.)

Long. corp. ¢ LO, set. 11, exp. al. 23 mm.

Hab.—A stream from Mt. Brevent in the valley of

Chamounix, in August. (Pict.)

Baetis melanonyz.

Cloe melanonyx, Pict. 1843-5; Cloeon melanonyx, Walk. —

1853.

Imago, ¢. ‘ Corpus saturate fuscum, ventre pallidiore.

Oculi turbinati rufi. Pedum antici fusci; posteriores

cretacei, unguibus atris. Ale vitrez, nervis fuscis,

transversalibus subtilissimis. Setze flavescentes, junc-

turis fuscis.””? (Pict.) :

Long. corp. ¢ 7, set. 9, exp. al. 18 mm.

Hab.—La Valle d’Entremont, Faucigny ; at the end of

June. (Were the eyes reddened in alcohol ?).

Baetis pumilus.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 25, 25a.)

Ephemera mutica (?), Lin. 1758=L. striata, Lin. 1761.

Cloe pumila, Burm. 1839. C. striata (?), Pict. 1843-5.

Cloeon pumila, Walk. 1853. B. pumilus, Ktn. 1870.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale anthracine: pedes virescenti-

grisel, tarsis nigricantibus ; sete nigricantes.

Imago, v. v. s. g@. Oculi turbinati atro-fuliginosi.

Tergum thoracis aterrimum, politum. Ale vitrine, ful-

gore talcoso. Pedes albi, tarsis, apicibus tibiarum, femo-

ribusque anticis, nigricantibus. Segmentorum abdominis

2-7 alba, pellucida; cetera supra furfuroso-fusca vel

fusco-castanea, subtus fusca. Forceps et sete albe.

?. Capitis vertex strigis duabus piceo-rufescentibus.

Tergum thoracis atrum. Pedes virescenti-grisei, tarsis

fuscis. Abdomen supra fusco-furfurosum, juncturis, et

on the Ephemeride. 119

spe linea longitudinali in medio, strigisque curvatis

duabus ad bases segmentorum singulorum intermedio-

rum, ochraceis; subtus serie notularum L-formatarum

hepaticoloratarum utrinque. Sete vix cervine. Oculi

olivacei.

Long. corp. 3 @ 5-7; al. g 4-6, 9 6-8; set. ¢ 11-

13, subim. 10; set. @ 7°5-10, subim. 10 mm.

Hab.—Wales, England, Belgium, Germany, Austria,

Switzerland and Corsica. It frequents rivers, from May

to October.

Baetis niger.

(Forceps et ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 26, 26a.)

Ephemera nigra, Lin. 1761. Cloe diptera, Ronalds,

1856. B. wiger, Ktn. 1870.

Subimago, v.v.s. Ale atrescentes. Pedes ¢ pallide

fumati; ? femoribus prasinis, strigis singulis brevibus

obscuris ab apicibus anticorum, tibiis fumatis, et tarsis

cervinis ultimis articulorum fumatis. Sete ¢ grisex,

@ cineree.

Imago, v.v.s. ¢. Oculi turbinati fuliginosi. Ter-

gum thoracis aterrimum, politum. Ale vitrine. Pedes

vel fumati, vel saturate virescenti-albi, vel prasini;

posterioribus crurum fumatis, anticis cinereis cum apici-

bus tibiarum obscuris. Segmentorum abdominis 2-7

fumata ; cetera supra vel rubigineo-fusca, vel piceo-fusca,

subtus virescenti-grisea. Sete albe vel cane, sepe

juncturis vix obscuris.

?. Oculi fusco-fuliginosi. Pedes virescenti-testacei,

juncturis tarsorum nigricantibus, Abdomen supra cas-

taneo-piceum, juncturis et sepe strigis brevibus tribus

ad bases paucorum intermediorum ochraceis; subtus

fuliginosum vel hepaticoloratum, pallidum, seepe notulis

lateralibus L-formatis obscuris. Sete fumatze, vel cane,

vel canz juncturis rufescentibus.

Long. corp. d ¢ 6-7°5; al. 3 ¢ 6-7; set. ¢ 10-11,

subim. 9; set. 9? 6-8°5, subim. 7 mm.

Hab.—England, and perhaps Sweden. May and June,

and also September.

I have seen an undescribed Australian species, which

is allied to some of the foregoing European species.

120 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Baetis (2) fuscus.

Cloe fusca, Schn. 18405.

Imago, ?. “Tergum thoracis fuscum ; alee vitrine,

nervis fuscis, antica area costali apicem versus fulvescente,

et nervis transversalibus pluribus. Pedes saturate testa-

cei. Abdomen supra rufescens, apicibus segmentorum

brunneis; subtus testaceum. Setz saturate testacex,

fusco annulate.”

Long. corp. @ 2°75,” set. 6°25.

Hab.—Messina. April. (Schn.)*

Baetis posticatus.

Cloeon posticata, Say, 1823; Cloe posticata, Hag. 1861.

Imago, v.s. 6. Oculi turbinati saturate rufo-fusci.

Tergum thoracis aterrimum. Ale vitrine. Pedes albi;

antici vix obscuriores bases (femorum ?) versus. Seg-

mentorum abdominis 2-7 pallide czrulescenti-hyalina,

ceetera saturate fusca. Sete albee.”’ (Say.)

Long. corp. 8, set. 19 mm.

Hab.—* Shippingsport. End of May.”

Baetis wnicolor.

Cloe unicolor, Hag. 1861 (nec Curt., Burm.).

Imago, s. s. ¢. “Corpus saturate piceum. Ale

vitrine, interdum nervis longitudinalibus obscuris; pos-

* The following European species are of uncertain position, and hardly

recognizable.

1. Baetis culiciformis.

Ephemera culiciformis, Lin. 1758. LE. albipennis, Walck. 1802. Cloe

culiciformis, Pict. 1843-5.

Imago. ‘Eph. cauda biseta, alis albis, corpore fusco.” (Lin. 1758.)

‘‘Culice paulo major. Thorax nigricans. Abdomen fuscum. Sete

caudales longitudine corporis. Tubercula dno supra oculos, crassa, magna,

livida.”” (Lin. 1761.)

Hab.—Sweden.

2. Baetis speciosus.

Ephemera speciosa, Pod. 1761.

_ Imago. ‘“E. speciosa, pedibus anticis longissimis cyaneis, alis albis,

corpore fusco.”’ (Pod.)

Long. corp. 3 lin.

Hab.—Incog.

on the Ephemeride. 121

ticze inter nervos duos sub-opace. Pedes pallide flaves-

centes, apicibus tarsorum obscuris. Set pallidz, apices

versus obscure.

9. Vertex capitis strigis longitudinalibus _latis

duabus. Abdomen acute rubiginosum, juncturis et macu-

lis lateralibus pallidis.” (Walsh.)

G.s.s. ‘* Adneo-fuscescens, alis vitreis, pedibus pal-

lide flavescentibus, et setis albis.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. ¢ 2°5, 9 4-5; set. d 5, 9 6-10; exp.

al. 6 9, ¢ 10-13 mm.

- Hab.—Washington, and (?) Porto Rico (Hag.) ; Rock

Island, Illinois (Walsh).

Baetis propinquus.

Cloe vicina, Walsh, 1862 (nec Hag. 1861). OC. propin-

qua, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago. ‘“ Ale fumate, nervis longitudinalibus

saturatioribus.”

Imago. ¢. “Piceus. Ale vitrine; postice inter

nervos duos opace. Pedes pallidi, femoribus anticis

pallide rubiginosis et apicibus tarsorum obscuris. Seg-

mentorum abdominis 2-7 alba, pellucida, punctis lateralibus

(ad spiracula ?) obscuris ; cetera supra picea, subtus opace

albicantia. Setz albicantes, interdum annulate.”

Q. ‘* Corpus supra vel rubiginoso-piceum, vel rubigi-

nosum. Abdomen subtus rubido-album. Femora antica

fere nunquam maculata.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 3-5, 2 3°5-4°5; set. ¢ 7°5-10, subim.

5; set. 9 5-9, subim. 4; exp. al. ¢ 9-11, 2? 8°5-l4mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois. (Walsh.)

Mr. Walsh considers it to be very closely related to

B. posticatus.*

* The same author supposes that the following may be a Baetis.

Baetis verticis.

B. verticis, Say, 1839.

‘‘Corpus ochroleucum vel cretaceum. Thorax strigis rubiginosis dua-

bus, antice confluentibus et postice obsolescentibus; plurimi nervorum

alarum atri; pedes albi, antici apicibus femorum rubiginosis, et apicibus

tibiarum juncturisque tarsorum fuscis.”’

Long. corp. et set. supra 6 mm.

Hab.—Indiana (Say).

122 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Baetis pygmeus.

Cloe pygmcea, Hag. 1861.

Imago, s.s. 9. “ Corpus fusco-griseum, alis vitreis,

pedibus setisque albis.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. 3, exp. al. 6 mm.

Hab.—The St. Lawrence. (Hag.)

Baetis fluctuans.

Cloe (B) fluctuans, Walsh, 1862.

Imago, 9. ‘Corpus brunneo-album. Thorax supra

strigis longitudinalibus brunneis duabus, postice conflu-

entibus. Ale vitrine, nervis longitudinalibus plerumque

brunneis, interdum quoque brunneo marginatis bases

versus: area marginalis anterioris maculis parvis brun-

neis quindecim vel sedecim, paucis confluentibus ; striga

pallida brunnea pone subcostam, cujus margo posticus

variabilis et irregularis, interdum sex- vel septem-den-

tatus, maculas rotundas pellucidas (circa xiv.), paucis

confluentibus, inclaudit. Abdomen plerumque brunneo-

album, interdum brunneo varium, interdum etiam pallide

brunneum, sexto segmentorum brunneo. Tarsorum apices

junctureque fusci.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ? 6-7, set. 10°5-12, exp. al. 13°5-17 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois.

Baetis pictus, nov. sp.

(Ala postica, Pl. V. fig. 27.)

Subimago, v. s. s. ¢ 2. Ale nigricantes, nervis

transversalibus marginibus anguste obscuris. Pedes

ee 5 3"

pallidi, juncturis tarsorum obscuris. Corpus subpiceum.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thorax supra fusco-piceus. Ale

vitrine, invariz, nervis pellucidis. Pedes veluti in ¢.

Abdomen olivaceo-fuscum, in medio paulo pallidius ;

subtus saturate rubido-album, rubido crebrissime punc-

tatum. Sete albze, juncturis obscuris.

2. Tergum thoracis saturate lutescens. Ale vitrine,

nervis longitudinalibus piceis, et transversalibus opace

on the Hphemeride. 123

albis: area marginalis anticz fusco variegata; area sub-

marginalis plus aut minus fusca, interdum maculis rotun-

dis pellucidis inclausis, apice fusco nebuloso; margo

terminalis peranguste fuscus et albo invicem marginatus :

ala postica seepe apud basin et usque ad coste medium

fuscescens. Pedes testacei, vel cervino-albicantes, femo-

ribus punctis rotundis fuligineis irroratis, paucis con-

fluentibus, atque tarsis albicantibus juncturis et ultimis

articulorum fuliginosis. (Abdomen decoloratum.) Seta

albee, juncturis atris.

Long. corp. '¢ '5-6°5; al. 6 65-7, 9.7; set.

circa 14, 2? circa 15 mm.

Hab.—Texas.

Baetis (?) undatus.

Cloe undata, Pict. 1843-5 ; Oloeon undata, Walk. 1853.

Imago, @.s.s. ‘ Pallide flavescens. Ale vitrine ;

antica apud marginem costalem fusca, maculis rotundis

pellucidis variata, fascia transversali in medio nebulosa,

et nebuli magna super marginem terminalem, fuscescen-

tibus. Sete albidee, juncturis in ¢ atris, in @ fuscis ”

(Pict.). ‘* Pedes flavescentes ; tarsorum apices obscuri ”

( ¢;,Hag.).

Long. corp. 2 7, set. 10, exp. al. 15-19 mm.

Hab.—Red River, and New York (Hag.); Mexico

(Pict.).

Baetis fasciatus.

Cloe fasciata, Pict. 1843-5 ; Cloeon fasciata, Walk. 1853.

Imago, ?.s. 8s. “Tergum thoracis pallide fuscum.

Ale vitreze: antica margine costali, fasctis transversali-

bus obliquis duabus, strigis transversali obliqua prope

marginem terminalem alteraque brevi super marginem

terminalem ita conjunctis ut maculas pellucidas claudunt,

et macula trigonali e costa inter strigam et ultimam fascia-

rum fasciz ipsi conjuncti, et denique maculd conspicud

in medio inter basin et primam fasciarum, fuscis. Abdo-

men saturate fuscum, setis lutescentibus fusco annulatis.”

(Pict.)

Long. corp. 9 7, set. 8, exp. al. 19 mm.

Hab.—Brazil. (Pict.)

124 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Some undescribed Australian species, which have the

anterior wings more or less coloured along the costa,

have been submitted to my inspection. I have seen,

besides these, a Californian undescribed species, with the

wings very distinctly marked with fuscous blotches along

the costa, and with an unusual number of cross-veinlets

in the wing. Their wings are figured in Pl. V. fig. 28,

29; Pl als fie. 1.

Baetis ferrugineus.

Cloe (A) ferruginea, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago. “ Ale fumatze; posteriores et anticarum

postcostee pallidiores. Ala antica crassioribus nervorum

et paucis alis, bases versus, fuscis, atque nervis trans-

versalibus cum horum marginibus albido-pellucidis.”

Imago, s.s. ¢. Corpus ferrugineum (rubiginosum).

Ale vitrine ; anticee apud costas vix flavescentes, tribus

prioribus nervorum longitudinalium flavescentibus, sed

paucis alis fuscescentibus. Pedes pallide flavescentes,

apicibus tibiarum et tarsorum, juncturis tarsorum, et

proximo articulorum tarsi antici, fuscis. Abdomen supra

rufescenti-brunneo irroratum, mterdum pene piceum ;

subtus palliderubido-album. Sete forcepsque albicantes ;

illarum intermedia brevissima.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. $ 6°5-9°5; set. 15-17; al. exp. 15-18 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh) .*

* Mr. Walsh thinks that the following species may be allied to B. fer-

rugineus.

Baetis albus.

B. alba, Say, 1824; Palingenia alba, Hag. 1861.

'@. Album; vertice fusco. Thorax vix flavescenti-brunneo tinctus ;

‘‘prothorax quadratus, cretaceus ’”’ (Hag.). Alee albide, nervulis apud cos-

tas obseuris. Pedes albi; antici breves, obscuri.

Long. corp. 11, exp. al. 22 mm. (Hag.)

Hab.—The North Red River (Hag.); Winnipeg River (Say).

Ephoron leukon, Williamson, 1802.

“Oculi nigri. Thorax fuscus. Ale, abdomen, et pedes albi. Ala

patentes, reticulate ; sete due.”

Long. corp. 12 mm.

Hab.—The River Passaick, in the immediate vicinity of Belville; from

the end of July to the middle of August. They begin to rise about forty

minutes after sunset, moult about half a minute afterwards, and fly nearly

as fast as dragon-flies. (Williamson.)

I have reasons for supposing that Tipule are called dragon-flies in some

parts of England; and if the Ephoron leukon flies as fast as these, its

habits conform, thus far, to those of British species of Heptagenia.

on the Ephemeride. 125

Genus SIPHLURUS,.

(Ala antica, Pl. III. fig. 2.)

Baetis, p., Say, 1823 ;| Ephemera, p., Zet. 1840; Pa-

lingenia, p.» Walk. 1853; Siphlonurus (err.), Etn. 1868.

Nympha agilis, laminis branchialibus utrinque septem:

laminarum due priores duplices, czeterze simplices, omnes

integre. Palpi tri-articulati, superiores proximo articu-

lorum ceeteris subeequali, et ultimo penultimo breviori;

inferiores proximo articulorum quoque ceteris subzequali

et valde depresso, secundo fere obconico apice obliquo,

et vix tertio longiori.

_ Super pedes omnes, alis erectis, setisque divergentibus

subimago stat.

Imago. Oculi g integri; setz due longe (resi-

duum intermediz interdum articulatum) ; alee quatuor ;

tarsi quinque-articulati, proximo articulorum interdum

tibiz adnato. Forcipis pedes quadri-articulati (nisi arti-

culus quintus basalis lamini ventrali penultimi segmen-

torum obtegatur); articuiorum primus largus, secundus

longissimus. Femina caret ovivalvuli ; neque laminam

ventralem penultimi segmentorum habet.

The species inhabit lakes and rivers, in the Palearctic

and Nearctic Regions.

From haying omitted to note down the tarsal char-

acters of all the species examined by me, I am, unfor-

tunately, unable to adopt Mr. Walsh’s convenient sec-

tions of the genus ; which are founded upon the structure

of the tarsus.

Stphlurus flavidus.

(Apex abdominis supra, Pl. V. fig. 30.)

Baetis flavida, Ed. Pict. 1865.

Imago,v.s.s. 6. “ Oculiceruleo-atri. Corpus fur-

furosum vel lutescens. Ale vix opace, nervis fuscis ;

antice juxta bases, et in areis marginali et submargi-

nali apices versus, pallide flavicantes. Pedes fulvi,

juncturis fuscis. Abdomen juncturis, et maculis longi-

tudinalibus apicem versus, fuscis;” subtus maculi U-

formata in segmento singulo: “ processum depressum

126 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

acutum, penultimum segmentorum utrinque habet. Sete

flavescentes, juncturis vix obscuris.”

Peo@pallidior”~ “(HS Pict.)

Long. corp. ¢ ? 12, exp.al. ¢ 27, ? 31 mm.

Hab.—San Ildefonso. July.

Siphlurus armatus.

(Forceps, Pl. VI. fig. 1, la.)

S. armatus, Etn. 1870.

Imago, v. s.s. 6. Tergum thoracis luteo-piceum.

Ale virescenti-griseo suffusee, nervis piceis. Pedum

antici picei; posteriores lutei vel furfurosi. Abdomen

supra fuscum, juncturis latera versus pallidis; subtus

lutescens vel ochraceum, strigis U-formatis in posteriori-

bus segmentorum. Sete cervino-albide, vel subfulve,

juncturis fuscis, pubescentes. Forceps piceus.

Long. corp. ¢ 14-15, al. 16, set. 24-25 mm.

Hab.—Killarney (M’Lach.), and Bishop’s Wood, Mid-

dlesex (Wormald). In July.

Mr. McLachlan has an undescribed foreign species

closely allied to S. armatus, probably from Germany.

Siphlurus lacustris.

(Forceps maris, Pl. VI. fig. 2.)

S. lacustris, Etn. 1870.

Subimago, v.v.s. do. Ale cinerez vel nigricantes.

Imago, v.v.s. ¢. Oculi supra saturate fuliginosi,

subtus saturate virescenti-grisei. Tergum thoracis ater-

rimum, politum. Al vitrine, nervis piceis, fulgore

hyacinthino; apex aree marginalis et arez submargi-

nalis anticee pallide virescenti-albus. Pedum antici atro-

virentes, cruribus saturate corvinis ; posteriores saturate

virescenti-grisel, tarsis infra spinulosis.* Abdomen supra

piceo-fuscum, juncturis ochraceis ; subtus saturate vires-

centi-griseum, tribus segmentorum apicalium fulvescen-

tibus, singulis strigis U-formatis obscuris ; sub prioribus

segmentorum strige duz, antice convergentes, obscure.

Sete virescenti-grisez, bases versus fuliginose, Juncturis

vix obscuris.

Long. corp. é 15, al. 14,-set. 20, subim. 11 mm.

Hab.—Ulyn Liydaw, Snowdon. August.

* Several other species likewise have the tarsi spinulose beneath.

on the Ephemeride. 127

Anglers in Wales, mistaking this for Hphemera danica,

are greatly astonished at seeing the subimago rise out of

the cold tranquil “llyns.” One of my specimens remained

a subimago during the greater part of two days.

There are some specimens of a small undescribed

(probably German) species in Mr. M’Lachlan’s possession,

which is very similar to S. lacustris.

Siphlurus Linnceanus, nov. sp.

(Forceps maris, Pl. VI. fig. 3. Notulze ventrales, fig. 3a.)

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Tergum thoracis fusco-rubiginosum.

Ale vitrine, vix fusco suffuse, nervis longitudinalibus

piceis, bases versus testaceis. Pedes ochracei, femoribus

singulis cingulis medius obscuris. Dorsum abdominis

fuscum, apicibus seementorum saturatioribus, et triangulis

pallidis ad latera segmentorum intermediorum: subtus

2-8 segmentorum pallide ochracea, singula signis obscuris

bicornutis punctisque atris duobus eleganter notata;

cetera subtus saturate rubiginosa. Set ochro-leuce,

juncturis fuscis.

Long. corp. ¢ 15, set. 26, al. exp. 26 mm.

Hab.—Incog. There is a specimen in the Linnean

cabinet, and the abdomen of a male in Mr. Dale’s collec-

tion.

Siphlurus annulatus.

(Forceps maris, Pl. VI. fig. 4a. Notulee ventrales, fig. 4.)

Baetis annulata, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v.s.s. 6. Tergum thoracis brunneo-luteum.

Ale vitrine, vix lactescentes, nervis piceis: apex arez

marginalis anticee nebula pallidissima fusci. Pedes

ochracei, juncturis et femorum cingulis mediis piceis.

Dorsum abdominis pallide fuscum, latera versus ochra-

ceum: venter ochraceus, segmento singulo intermedio

strigis longitudinalibus duabus punctisque tribus fuscis.

Setz ochracez, juncturis piceis.

Long. corp. ¢ 13, al. 15, set. 18 mm.

Hab.—Trenton Falls, New York.

128 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Siphlurus bicolor.

Palingenia bicolor, Walk. 1853.

Subimago, 9.v.s.s. Als fusce, nervis transversa-

libus marginibus saturatioribus, lis in apice arez margi-

nalis antic subrectis. Tergum thoracis luteum. Pedum

antici luteo-fusci, tarsis pallidioribus ; posteriores ochra-

cel. Setz lutez.

Long. corp. 2 11, al. 14 mm.

Hab.—St. Martin’s Falls, River Albany, Hudson’s Bay

(Barnston).

Siphlurus femoratus.

Baetis femorata, Say, 1823; B. femorata, (?) Walsh ;

vel (?) Baetis (A) interlineata, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago. “ Ale $ nivez, nervis cum marginibus

suis fuscis; 9 ale albicantes, nervis fuscis fusco margi-

natis.” (Say.)

Imago, v.s. ¢. “ Piceus. Oculi supra margaritacei,

singuli macula mobili atra; subtus pallide fusci. Alee

vitrine: antice tribus prioribus nervorum longitudina-

lum et paucis sequentium, atque nervis transversalibus

areee submarginalis cum paucis aliis bases alarum ver-

sus, fuscis; macula brunnea in disco, lineaque atra in

costz medio, interdum quoque areis marginalibus apices

versus, obscuratis: posticee seriebus singulis brevibus

nervorum transversalium fuscorum ad bases costarum

brunneo nebulosis. Pedum antici pallide brunnei, inter-

dum proximis dimidiorum saturatioribus; posteriores

pallidiores ; omnes femoribus brunneo bi-cinctis, tibiis ad

bases et apices tarsisque ad juncturas brunneis. Seg-

mentorum abdominis 4-5 alba, pellucida, singula fasciis

apicalibus angustis piceis, maculis dorsalibus in mediis

utrinque obscuris, maculisque lateralibus pallidis ; venter

albicans, pellucidus. Sete alba, annulate.”

Q. ‘*Segmentorum abdominis 1-5 supra piceo-brun-

nea, bases versus pallidiora. Alze posticee in toto vitrine.”’

(Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 12-13°5, 9 12°5-14; set. gd 20-24, 9

13-16; exp. al. g 25-28, 9 28-29 mm.

Hab.—Cincinnati (Say) ; Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh).

on the Bphemeride. 129

Siphlurus alternatus.

Baetis alternata, Say, 1824; in sect. A, Walsh.

Subimago. ‘Ale fumatz, apicibus posticarum pal-

lide virescentibus.”

Imago, s.s. ¢. “ Piceo-brunneus. Ale vitrine, nervis

fuscis. Pedum antici pallide brunnei, coxi, cingulo pree-

apicali femoris, juncturisque tarsorum, brunneis: poste-

riores pallidiores. Segmentorum abdominis 2-9 vel 4-9

singula maculis trigonalibus lateralibus flavescentibus

duabus supra juxta bases, plus aut minus confiuentibus ;

subtus pallida, singula maculis parvis basalibus in mediis,

punctis transversalibus in medis duobus, lineisque

utrinque obliquis sub- abbreviatis, brunneis. Setze albi-

cantes, juncturis brunneis.”

@. ‘ Caput carinis divergentibus inter ocellos aronas

marginibus antico et laterali verticis (vel etiam interdum

carina in medio hujus), strigisque brevibus utrinque

duabus, flavescentibus.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 10°5-12°5, ¢ 10-12; set. ¢ 19-381,

subim. 13; set. ? 18-19, subim. 14-15; exp. al. ¢ 23-

30, ¢ 26-32 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois, and the River Des Plaines

near Chicago (Walsh) ; Washington (Hag.); St. Peter’s

River (Say).

Siphlurus aridus.

Baetis arida, Say, 1839; in sect. B, Walsh.

Subimago. “ Ale nigricante suffusee, preecipue apices

versus, et nervis transversalibus fusco marginatis.”

Imago. 6. “Caput pallidum, macula magné intra

posteriores ocellorum orbitas utrinque atria. Thorax

piceus. Ale vitrine, nervis pallidissime hyalinis, inter-

dum bases costarum versus fuscescentibus. Pedum antici

vel apicibus tarsorum, tibiis, et femoribus usque ad media,

obscure virescenti-fuscis; vel pallide virescentibus, vix

ad apices versus obfuscatis ; vel in toto fuscis vel piceis:

posteriores virescenti-albi, apicibus tarsorum vix obscuris.

Segmentorum abdominis 1-8 supra picea, singula maculis

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParRT I. (MARCH.) K

130 Rev. A. H. Eaton’s Monograph

lateralibus trigonalibus vel semi-orbicularibus pallide

rubiginosis ad bases; ultimum pallide rubigimosum. Setze

virescenti-albee.”

9. Nervi alarum pallide fusci. Segmentorum ab-

dominis 1-8 supra saturate rubiginosa et maculata veluti

in ¢.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. 3d 8-12, ? 9-13; set. ¢ 18-23, subim.

12-14; set. ¢ 17-26, subim. 10-14; exp. al. ¢ 20-25°5,

@ 23°5-32 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Ihinois (Walsh); Indiana, about

the middle of June (Say).

Siphlurus siccus.

Baetis (B) siccus, Walsh, 1862.

Imago, ¢. ‘ Aprecedente discrepat in orbitis ocel-

lorum posticorum intus haud plane obscuris; in nervis

alarum fuscis ; in pedibus anticis piceis, apicibus tibia-

rum atris, et proximis articulorum tarsalium pallidis

(juncturis suis exceptis); in dorso abdominis piceo, im-

maculato ; et in setis virescenti-albis, juncturis anguste

fuscis.”

¢. ‘Tarsus anticus fuscus, proximo articulorum

palido. Dorsum abdominis saturate rubiginosum, imma-

culatum.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 8°5-10, 2 85-115; set. ¢ 19, 9 15;

exp. al. ¢ 19-22, @ 23-27 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh).

Siphlurus debilis.

Baetis (C) debilis, Walsh, 1862; (nec Walk. 1853).

Subimago. ‘ Alee fumatee, nervis fuscis.”

Imago, v.s. 6. ‘Oculi supra brunnei, subtus fusci.

Thorax piceus. Ale vitrine, nervis pallide hyalinis,

tribus prioribus nervorum longitudinalium, bases (et in-

terdum quoque apices) versus, fuscis. Pedes pallide

virescentes, genubus cingulisque femorum fuscis; antici

apicibus tibiarum, juncturis, et ultimis articulorum tar-

salium, fuscis; posteriores apicibus articulorum tarsalium

fuscis. Abdomen rubiginosum, apicibus segmentorum

piceis. Sete albicantes.”

on the Ephemeride. 131

2. ®Pallidior. horace flavescens. Nervi alarum

costas et apices versus nigricantes.” (Walsh.)

_ Long. corp. ¢ 4-5°5, 9 5-7; set. ¢ 13-14, subim.

circa 5; set. 2 8-12; exp.al. ¢ 13-15, @ 15-16 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh).

At this point is resumed the series of genera which

have a short ventral lamina, produced from the tip of

the penultimate segment of the female; which series

comprises Leptophlebia, Ephemerella, Betisca, Isonychia,

Coloburus and Heptagenia.*

* Species generis incerti.

The following Cingalese species have been classed in Cloe by Dr. Hagen;

but most likely a new genus will have to be erected for them. I have seen

only one female subimago of what I suppose to be C. tristis, Hag.; and

therefore I am not in a position to describe the genus. This female has

hind-wings unconformable to those of Baetis, and a ventral plate produced

from the apex of the penultimate segment; but no egg-valve. According

to Dr. Hagen, the male has three long sete. The name Cloe cannot be

retained for them. Some of them may belong to Leptophlebia.

Sectio I. Ale quatuor.

No. 1.

Cloe tristis, Hag. 1858.

Subimago 2, 8.8. ‘Nigra, pedibus Iuteis, femoribus anticis nigris ;

setis griseis, incisuris nigris; alis nigris, opacis.”

Long. set. 9 subim. 15, exp. al. 13 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde. (Hag.)

tristis.

No. 2. consueta.

Cloe consueta, Hag. 1858.

Subimago. ‘ Alis paulo griseis opacis.”

Imago. “ Capite nigro, thorace brunneo, pedibus pallidis, abdomine pal-

lido, apicibus segmentorum anguste brunneo marginatis, setis pallidis

incisuris basalibus nigris ; alis vitreis (hyalinis), venis pallidis; 9 (?) tho-

race medio luteo, abdomine brunneo.”’

Long. set. 2 10, exp. al. 12 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde. (Hag.)

No. 3. solida,

Cloe solida, Hag. 1858.

Subimago (?). “Alis griseis opacis, thorace abdomineque Iuteis.”

Imago 9. ‘ Fusco-enea, abdomine subtus pallido, pedibus luteis, setis

eriseis incisuris nigris, alis vitrinis.”

Long. set. 7, exp. al. 10 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde. (Hag.)

132 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Genus CoLopurRus.

(Ala antica, Pl. IIT. fig. 3.)

Palingenia, p., et Baetis p., Walk. 1853 ; Colobwrus,

Htn. 1868.

Imago. Oculi ¢ sub-partiti; ale quatuor; setarum

media brevissima, articulata. Tarsi postici quinque-arti-

culati: articulorum primus tibie adnatus, vix discretus,

secundo longior; secundus in ¢ tertio equalis ; secun-

dus, tertius et quartus in ¢ primo graduatim minores.

Femina caret ovivalvula ; processus ventralis tamen brevis

laminaris e penultimi segmentorum apice producitur.

Pedes forcipis quadri-articulati; articulorum proximus

largus, secundo brevior; secundus reliquis longitudine

subzequalis.

Ooloburus humeralis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 6, 6a; feminz, 6b.)

Palingenia humeralis & Baetis remota, Walk. 1853; Co-

loburus humeralis, Etn. 1868.

Subimago, v.s.s. 9. Ale anticz can, juxta bases

ochracevz, apices versus fuscescentes, nervis transversa-

libus murino marginatis, preecipue costas versus. Sete

rubiginos, Juncturis obscuris.

Imago, v.s.s. 3. Thorax supra fuscns, politus. Alze

cano tincte, pellucide, nervis atris, juxta bases ochracee ;

antica area submarginali et areze marginalis apice sub-

fuscis, atque pluribus nervorum transversalium inter

No. 4.

Cloe signata, Hag. 1858.

signata.

Imago. ‘‘Capite nigro, thorace fusco-wneo, abdomine fusco, subtus

basibus segmentorum pallidis; pedibus albidis, femoribus in mediis, cum

genu, nigro annulatis; setis albidis, incisuris nigris.”’

Long. set. 8, exp. al. 12 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde. (Hag.)

Sectio II. Alw dua.

No. 5.

Cloe marginalis, Hag. 1858.

morginalis.

Subimago. ‘ Luteo-fusca, abdomine fusco, pedibus luteis, setis griseis;

alis griseis, margine costali fusco.”

Imago, 9. “Nigra, pedibus anticis nigris, posticis luteis; setis albis,

nigro articulatis; alis vitrinis, margine costali vix obscuriori.”

Long. set. 2 16, subim. 7; exp. al. 10-14 mm.

Hab.—Rainbodde. (Hag.)

on the Hphemeride. 133

costam duosque nervorum sequentium fusco marginatis.

Pedum antici fusci; posteriores fulvo-lutei, apicibus

tibiarum et articulorum tarsalium fuscis. Abdomen supra

fuscescens.

@. Ale eis maris simillime, sed juxta bases lutea.

Pedum antici brunneo-lutei; posteriores lutei, apicibus

tibiarum ultimisque articulorum tarsalium subfuscis.

long. corp. ¢ 10; 9 7-10 ;,al. ¢ 15, 9 18-17: sot.

6 20 & 2, 2 15 & 1, subim. 12-13 & 1 mm.

Hab.—Otago, New Zealand.

Coloburus haleuticus, nov. sp.

(Forceps maris, Pl. VI. fig. 7, 7a.)

Imago, v. s. s. ¢@. Thorax supra furfurosus. Alex

vitrine, lacteo tinctz, juxta bases subfusce, nervis atro-

piceis; apices ares marginalis et arez submarginalis

virescenti-grisei1. Pedum antici rufo-picei; posteriores

brunneo-lutescentes. Abdomen supra rufo-fuscum, junc-

turis paulo obscuris, lineis spiracularibus testaceis, ven-

tre rufo-lutescenti. Sets fuscee, pubescentes: forceps

testaceus, apices versus piceo tinctus.

Long. corp. ¢ 11, al. 15, set. 20 & 5 mm.

Hab.—Melbourne (?) [M’Coy].

Genus Cronicus, noy. gen.*

Baetis, p., Pict. 1854.

Imago. Heptagenie affinis. Forcipis maris pedes

quadri-articulati; articulorum penultimus longus, secundo

vix brevior, primus et ultimus brevissimi. Setarum

media brevissima.

Cronicus anomalus.

(Forceps, Pl. VI. fig. 8.)

Baetis anomala, Pict. 1854.

Long. corp. ¢ 10, exp. al. 20 mm.

Species in electro.

* Derivation.—Kpovikos, old-fashioned, out of date.

134 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Whether the Baetis gigantea, grossa, and longipes

of MM. Pictet and Hagen (1856) belong to this genus

or not, I am unable to say, because they are not figured,

and I have not seen the types.

Genus IsonycHIA, nov. gen.

(Ala antica, Pl. IIT. fig. 4.)

Baetis, p., Walk. 1853.

Imago, ¢. Ale quatuor: setarum media sepissime

rejicitur, interdum tamen rudimentum brevissimum re-

tinetur. Tarsi quinque-articulati; articulorum posterio-

rum primus secundo subzequalis, et tertius etiam quarto

subeequalis, sed secundus tertio paulo longior: ungues

uncinati, conformes. Ovivalvula caret; sed processus

laminaris ventralis e penultimi segmentorum apice pro-

ducitur. Oculi ¢ integri.

Forsan ad Isonychiam species Siphluri in Baetis

serie B (Walsh), et Hphemera pudica (Hag.), pertinere

inveniantur.

Isonychia manca, nov. sp.

(Genitalia, Pl. VI. fig. 5, 5a.)

Subimago, d ¢.v.s.s. Ale nigricantes, venis sa-

turate et anguste marginatis; post-costas versus palli-

diores.

Imago, v.s.s. @. Thoracis tergum luteo-furfurosum.

Ale vix lurido tinct, nervis vix luridis. Pedum antici

femoribus olivaceo-piceis, apicibus saturate piceis, tibiis

atro-piceis, tarsis testaceis juncturis atris; posteriores

stramineo-gambosi, unguibus vix obscuris. Abdomen

decoloratum. Setee pallidissime ochracez, proximis

juncturarum obscuris.

@. Thoracis tergum et caput furfurosa, apud latera

interdum fusco-picea. Alee vitrinee, vix lacteo vel lurido

tinctz ; nervorum longitudinales picei, transversales atri.

Pedum antici apicibus femorum piceis, tibiis atris, duobus

proximis articulorum tarsalium albicantibus, ceteris

nigricantibus ; posteriores ochracei, unguibus obscuris.

Abdomen rufo-piceum, setis cretaceis, breviter pubescen-

tibus. Interdum pedes antici sunt picei, tarsis murinis.

Long. corp. ¢ 10, ¢ 7-12, al. 3 10; -9 11°5-13; set.

6 18, ¢ 20-22 mm.

Hab.—Texas (M’Lach.).

on the Hphemeride. 135

Isonychia ignota.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 29.)

Baetis ignota, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thoracis tergum brunneo-piceum.

Alz vitrine, nervis testaceis. Pedum antici fusco-picei,

Juncturis pallidis ; posteriores lurido-straminei. Abdomen

supra piceum, apicibus seementorum obscuris: “ venter

rubiginosus” (Walk.). Sets bases versus sub-fuligi-

nose.

Long..corp. ¢ 10:5, al. 12 mm.

Hab.—Incog. (? United States.)

Genus HeEpraGenia.

(Ala antica, Pl. III. fig. 5.)

Ephemera, p., Pod. 1761; Baetis (A), Curt. 1834 (nec

Leach, 1815) ; Heptagenia, Walsh, 1863 ; Hedyurus, Etn.

1868.

Nympha agile reptans, laminis branchialibus utrinque

septem ; laminz simplices integree, fasciculis e radicibus

singulis filamentorum branchialium. Femora late com-

pressa, ciliata. Caput late depressum: labrum induplica-

tum, transversum, obtuse triangulare, apice emarginato.

Palpi maxillares bi-articulati: maxillarum superiores lami-

nares, intus ciliate, antice (7. e., apud apices) pectinatz,

palpis tenuibus ; inferiores palpis robustis ultimis arti-

culorum bifidis, dimidiis imbricatis. Labium ovale mi-

nutum, palpis inarticulatis, brevissimis, ob-ovatis.

Subimago in habitfi Siphlwro admodum similis est.

Imago. Alz quatuor: setaruam media caret: oculi

maris simplices. Tarsorum posteriores quinque-articulati ;

articulorum secundus, tertius, et quartus graduatim de-

crescentes: ungues dissimiles. TF orcipis maris artus tri-

articulati, proximis articulorum longissimis, ex apice pro-

cessus Ventralis procedentes. Ovivalvulam et processum

ventralem penultimi segmentorum femina habet.

The species frequent streams and rivers in the Pale-

arctic and Nearctic regions, the Andes, and the Malay

Archipelago.

136 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Heptagenia semicolorata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 9.)

Ephemera stigma (?), Gmel. 1790-38. 2. fuscula (?),

Schr. 1798 (subim.). Baetis semicolorata, Curt. 1834.

B, semitincta (?), Pict. 1843-5.*

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale antice grises ; postice pal-

lide cervinze vel fumatee. Pedes virescenti-grisei, femor-

ibus in mediis obscure punctatis, tarsisque corvinis vel

atro-virescentibus. Setee nigricantes. Oculi maris satu-

rate olivacei, cingulis atris in medis.

Imago, v. v.s. &. Oculisupra saturate picei, cingulis

subtus atris marginibus cerulescenti-griseis. Tergum

thoracis fusco-luteum. Ale vitrine, nervis et basibus

rubiginosis. Pedes virescenti- grisei, strigis abbreviatis

longitudinalibus in mediis femorum, cruribus anticis

nigricantibus, sed posterioribus tarsorum vel ochraceo-

fumosis, vel stramineis plus aut minus corvino tinctis,

vel fulvis unguibus obscuris. Abdomen supra fuscum,

apicibus segmentorum obscuris et juncturis pallidis;

subtus saturate murinum. Setze fuliginose, vel nigri-

cantes.

2 . Alee vitrine, crassioribus nervorum longitudinalium

testaceis, tenuioribus atro-fuscis, et transversalibus atris ;

vel omnibus testaceis. Oculi atro-olivacei. Abdomen

supra ochraceo-furfurosum, juncturis pallidissimis ; subtus

testaceum. Processus ventralis penultimi segmentorum

emarginatus.

Long. corp. ¢ 7°5-10, 9 7°5-9; al. g 10, 2 10°5;

set. ¢ 23-25, subim. 8-9; set. 2? 14, subim. 10 mm.

Hab.—Great Britain, Switzerland, and Austria; in cold

streams and the rapids of rivers. June to September.

* The specimens labelled semitincta in M. Ed. Pictet’s collection, are

indistinguishable from a pale variety of semicolorata, which occurs in the

Lake District of England. It seems advisable, notwithstanding, to state

M. Pictet’s criteria of semitincta, in case the species should be really

distinct from one another.

Subimago. ‘Ale pallide flavescenti-grisee. Corpus virescenti- fla-

vescens.”’

Imago. ‘ Thorax striga dorsali pallida. Femora antica acute fulva.”’

Hab.—A small stream at Versoix, on the Lake of Geneva, in the middle

of June. (Pict.)

One can hardly doubt that it is a species distinct from semicolorata.

on the Hphemeride. 137

Heptagenia nivata, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 10.)

Subimago, v. v. s. ¢ ¢. Alarum antice saturate

cinerez ; posteriores pallidiores. Pedes olivacei, tarsis

nigricantibus ; antici obscuratiores. Sete nigra.

Imago, v. v. s. ¢. Oculi atro-fuliginei, infra paulo

olivaceo tincti. Tergum thoracis aterrimum, politum.

Ale vitrine, invariz ; nervi virescenti-grisei, post-cubi-

tales recti. Pedum antici atro-olivacei, tibiis et tarsis

atris; posteriores olivacei, tibiis saturate virescenti-albis

vel cretaceis, atque tarsis olivaceo tinctis. Abdomen

supra fuscum, juncturis paulo pallidioribus ; subtus oliva-

ceum. Sete nigricantes, juncturis anguste obscuris.

9. Post-cubitales vix irregulares. Pedum antici tibiis

tarsisque saturate nigricantibus ; posteriores tibiis creta-

ceis, et tarsis nigricantibus unguibus pallidis. Abdomen

subtus olivaceum, maculis ganghalibus paulo obscura-

tioribus. Lamina ventralis penultimi segmentorum apice

lente emarginato.

Hone! corp. (Gi 2 11; al...¢) 12, 9. 17+ set., gd 27,

subim. 8; set. ? 12-15 mm.

Hab.—The stream at Barberine; and Lac de Combal.

July. It is named nivata from its haunts being chilled

with snow.

Heptagenia borealis, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 11.)

Imago, v.s.s. 6. Thoracis tergum piceum. Ale

vitrine ; nervorum longitudinales pallide fusci. Pedes

pallide fusci. Abdomen ochraceum, pellucidum; supra

apicibus et paucis segmentorum apicalium fuscis. Setze

cervine, juncturis fuscis.

Long. corp. & al. g 10 mm.

Hab.—Finmark, between Kautokeino and Karaswando.

(Walk. MS.) July or August.*

* An account of Messrs. Walker and Christy’s journey is given in the

Entomological Magazine (1837) iv. 462-83.

138 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Heptagenia canadensis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 12, 12a.)

Baetis canadensis, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v. s. ss 6. Thorax supra saturate luteus.

Ale vitrine, nervis fuscis ; ares marginalis et submar-

ginalis vix fuscescentes, nebuli apicali breviter apud

marginem terminalem producti, et duobus nervorum

transversalium prope punctum nodale nebulis singulis

rotundatis obscuris, nebulis interdum tamen confluenti-

bus. Pedes pallide testacei, juncturis tarsorum fuscis,

apicibus tibiarum atris, et femoribus obscure bicingulatis.

Abdomen supra sub-ochraceum, apicibus segmentorum

strigisque lateralibus obliquis fuscis ; subtus stramineum.

Setze pallidee, juncturis fuscis.

Long. corp. ¢ 9, al. 10, set. supra 18 mm.

Hab.—Canada.

Heptagenia fusca.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 18, 13a, b.)

Baetis fusca, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v. s. s. ¢ 2. Tergum thoracis castaneo-

piceum. Alee vitrine, nervis pallide fuscis, et apice area

marginalis anticee vix fuscescente. Pedum antici fusci:

posteriores saturate testacei: femora strigis singulis bre-

vibus in mediis longitudinalibus atris. Abdomen fuscum,

apicibus segmentorum saturatioribus.

Long. corp. ¢ ¢ 6-7, al. 9-10 mm.

Hab.—St. Martin’s Falls, Albany R., Hudson’s Bay.

Heptagenia cupulata, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 14, 14a.)

Subimago, v.s.s. Ale testacez, nervis fuscis.

Imago, v. s. s. 6. Thoracis tergum luteum. Ale

vitrine : antice areis marginalibus et submarginalibus

apices versus fuscescentibus, longitudinalibus nervorum

piceis et transversalibus atris, (basi subcoste et nervo

transversali crasso juxta basin arez marginalis aurantiacis

on the Hphemeride. 139

exceptis); posticaze nervis bases versus testaceis, et apud

margines terminales anguste corvimo tincte. Pedes

saturatissime lutei. Abdomen supra furfurosum, strigd

longitudinali media, apicibus segmentorum, strigisque

lateralibus obliquis, fuliginosis, Sete saturate hepati-

coloratz.

? ovivalvuli acuta, processuque ventrali penultimi

segmentorum integro, sinu longitudinali.

Long. corp. ¢ 18, ? 16, set. g 48, 9 54mm.

Hab.—Northern China.

The neuration of the fore-wing is peculiar.

Heptagenia basalis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 15, 15a.)

Baetis basalis, Walk. 1853; nec Steph. MS.

Imago, v. s. s. o&. Tergum thoracis piceum. Alex

vitrex, nervis piceis: anticee vix fusco tincte marginem

interiorem versus, nervis transversalibus in areis margi-

nalibus et submarginalibus plus aut minus obscure mar-

ginatis, marginibus nonnunquam confluentibus, itaque

maculam formantibus ad punctum nodale alteramque inter

hoc et alze apicem ; posteriores bases versus vix fusco-piceo

tincte. (Exemplar pedibus caret). Abdomen piceum,

juncturis pallidis. Sete cervine, juncturis fuscis.

Long. corp. ¢ 15, al. 18, set. 21 mm.

Hab.—Lake Winnipeg.

Heptagenia maculipennis.

H. maculipennis, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago. ‘ Ale griseo tinct, nervis transversalibus

obscure marginatis.”

Imago. 6. “ Pallide flavicans. Capitis vertex rubi-

ginosus; orbite ocellorum grisez. ‘'Tergum thoracis ru-

biginosum. Ale vitrine, nervis longitudinalibus tenui-

bus obscuris, et pluribus transversalium atris: horum ii

super interiorem submarginem ale antic, atque omnes

ale posticz, vitrei sunt. Nervi transversales anthracini

in area marginali ale antic adeo collocantur ut quasi

maculas forment; viz., nervi circa quatuor prope basin,

140 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

quorum primus aream submarginalem quoque transit,

marginibus late anthracinis; deinde spatium; postea tres

ad punctum nodale, paucis sequentibus; deinde circa

medium spatii sequentis alii quatuor vel quinque ; denique

nervi ad spatia solita positi usque ad apicem. Pedes

albicantes, femoribus flavescentibus, seepissime strigis

tenuibus singulis brevibus subtus apices; ungues apices

que tibiarum anticarum fusci. Dorsum abdominis apicem

versus piceum ; sete forcepsque albidee.”

9. Pallidior. Abdominis segmenta apicalia supra

albicantia, plus aut minus rubiginoso tincta. In pos-

terioribus tarsorum primus articulorum tarsalium se-

cundo equalis: tibia antica apice fere nunquam fusco.

Macule costales alee anticze eis maris paulo pallidiores”

(Walsh). Penultimi segmentorum processus ventralis

integer esse mihi videtur.

Long. corp. ¢ 4°5-6, ? 5-6; set. g 12-15, subim. 7°5;

set. 9 9-12, subim. 8; exp.al. ¢ 14-17, ? 15-17 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh); New York

(M’ Lach. Mus.).

Heptagenia cruentata.

H. cruentata, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago. “ Alze opace flavescentes. Seta nigricantes

(vel grisez ?), Juncturis vix fuscis.”

Imago, v. s. 6. Flavescens. Oculi cerulescenti-

grisei, lineis singulis atris intersectis. Tergum thoracis

sanguineum. Ale vitrine, nervis fuscis, bases versus

vitreis, costisque in majore parte flavescentibus ; sub-

costa apud punctum nodale incrassata atque obfuscata.

Femorum dimidia apicalia annulis confluentibus pallide

sanguineis bicincta; tibiae quoque bases et apices versus

pallide sanguinez ; tarsorum juncture atque ungues ob-

scuri. Abdomen supra sanguineum, juncturis satura-

tioribus. Forceps pallidus, apicibus fuscis. Setz albide,

juncturis in vices anguste lateque obscuris.”

?. © Plerumque mari pallidior. Venter interdum

sanguineus.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 7-8, 2 8-9; set. g 25-27, subim. 12-

15; set. ¢ 17-20; exp.al. g 19-20, 9 22-23°5 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Ilinois (Walsh).

on the Ephemeride. 141

Heptagenia simplew.

H., simplex, Walsh, 1863.

Subimago, ‘ Ale flavescentes; costa feminz unius

fusca.”

Imago, vy.s. 3. ‘ Ab acute flavo ad albidum varians.

Oculi virescenti-sulphurei ; orbitee ocellorum nigricantes.

Tergum thoracis carneum. Ale vitrine, nervis apicali-

bus, et interdum quoque eis in areis marginalibus, fuscis.

Pedes albi, femoribus flavis vel cretaceis, apicibusque

tarsorum fuscis: antici apicibus tibiarum atque inter-

dum juncturis tarsorum fuscis, Abdomen vitreum, seg-

mentis apicalibus (2-3) flavescentibus vel albidis. Setw

albz, nigricantes apices versus. Forceps albus.”

2. “Abdomen flavum, nisi vacuum sit, setis albis.

Pedes apicibus tarsorum solum fuscescentibus. Nervi

alarum anticarum vitrei, costis subcostisque flavescenti-

bus, paucisque nervorum transversalium inter horum

apices obscuris, exceptis.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 6-8, 2? 6°5-9; set. g 14-18°5, subim.

10°5; set. ¢ 14-16, subim. 10-15; exp. al. g 16-20°5,

@ 19-25°5 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh).

Heptagenia pulchella.

Palingenia (C) pulchella, Walsh, 1862. (?) Pal. (C)

terminata, Walsh, 1862.*

Subimago. “ Ale sub-opace, fusco nebulose, nervis

transversalibus fuscis, obscure marginatis. Sete vix

. . . . 4

pilose, nisi juxta bases.”

Imago, v.s. 6 “ Oculi margaritacei, vel atrescentes.

Thoracis tergum rubigineo-piceum, meso- et meta-tho-

racis scutellis albidis. Ale vitrese: antics areis margi-

nalibus apices versus pallide brunneo nebulosis, et nervis

transversalibus fuscis, eis prope basin arew marginalis

lutescentibus exceptis ; posticee pluribus nervorum pel-

lucidis. Pedum antici pallide flavescentes, femoribus

fusco bicinctis, apicibus tibiarum tarsorumque cum junc-

* Utrum H. terminata sit varietas H. pulchelle, an species vera, Domi-

nus Walsh dubitat. In H. terminata sex priora segmentorum abdominis

immaculata, pedumque posteriores pallide flavescentes sunt. Forsan

quoque oculi maris flavescentes fuerint.

142 Rey. A. HE. Eaton’s Monograph

turis horum fuscis; posteriores albidi, similiterque sig-

nati. Segmentorum abdominis 1-6 albida, punctis sin-

gulis lateralibus prope apices magnis fuscis; cetera

rubiginoso-picea: venter albicans. Set fuscee, pallidi-

ores apices versus.”

9. ‘Vertex capitis et tergum thoracis albicantes:

ille luteo, hoc vel luteo vel rubiginoso variat. Abdomen

flavum, maculis veluti in mari.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 5-8, ? 5°5-8; set. ¢ 17-21, subim.

10-13; set. 9 15-16, subim. 8-13; exp. al. ¢ 15-21, 9

17-23 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh).

Heptagenia interpunctata.

Baetis interpunctata, Say, 1839 ; Palingenia (C) inter-

punctata, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago. ‘ Ale primo flavescenti tinct; denique

fuscee, opacee.””

Imago, v. s. 6. “Flavescens. Oculi pallide vires-

centi-sulphurei ; macula atra inter oculos, alteraque infra

antennas; orbite ocellorum fusce. Tergum thoracis

piceum, triangula basali lineisque singulis lateralibus

prothoracis atris. Alz vitrine; antice prope costas,

preecipue apices versus, lutescenti-brunneo nebulosz; in

medio ale, inter tertium atque quartum nervorum longi-

tudinalium, striga brevis crassa atra jacet; nervi fusci,

costa in majore parte flavescenti excepta: posticee apud

apices brunnez. Pedum antici pallide virescenti-flavi

(sulphurei?), femoribus fusco bicinctis, apicibus junc-

turisque tibiarum et tarsorum quoque fuscis; posteriores

pallidiores. Abdomen pallide opace viridescens, striga

dorsali et dimidiis apicalibus segmentorum piceis ; subtus

apicibus segmentorum obscuris. Sete pallid, vires-

centes, juncturis fuscis.”’

9. “Tergum thoracis luteum, plerumque puncto

tantum super prothoracem nigro. Abdomen supra

flavum, notis angustioribus, et subtus notis ¢ pallidiori-

bus. Sete albidee. Alze anticze apud costas flavescentes,

nervis transversalibus e postcosta (sicut nervi alarum

posticarum) pellucidis et flavescentibus ” (Walsh).

on the Ephemeride. 143

Long. corp. ¢ 7-10, ¢ 5-10; set. gd 20-25, subim.

9-15; set. 2 14-24, subim. 7-14; exp.al. ¢ 17-25, 9

18°5-30 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh) ; Indiana (Say).

Heptagenia flavescens.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 16.)

Palingenia (C) flavescens, Walsh, 1862.

Subimago. <6. “ Ale vel subfuscescentes, colore ner-

vorum indistinctiori quam in imagine; vel subflaves-

centes, sub-opace, nervis flavescentibus, transversalibus

in mediis apicesque versus exceptis. Segmentorum ab-

dominis sex priora flava, strigis carentia. Setee invariz.”

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. Thoracis tergum luteum, vel

“rubiginosum vel piceum.” Alze vitrine, fulgore lacteo ;

nervi picei, costis et subcostis majore parte flavescenti-

bus exceptis ; punctum nodale indistinctum; arez mar-

ginalis apex virescenti-griseo vel “ pallide rubiginoso”

nebulosus. Pedum- antici sub-gambosi, vel “ pallide

rubiginosi,’” femoribus bicinctis, apicibus juncturisque

tibiarum et tarsorum fuscis; posteriores testacei, ‘ apici-

bus femorum” juncturisque tarsorum obscuris. Abdo-

men supra rufo-fuscum vel “rubigimosum,” juncturis

obscuris ; sex priora segmentorum strigis pallidis duabus

sub-distinctis, catera lutescentia: subtus testaceum,

apicem versus lutescens. Sete albicantes, juncturis

fuscis. ‘ Venter in v.s. pallide virescens, apice excepto.”

2. © Pallidior, abdomine supra pallide fusco vel rubi-

ginoso, carens vittis. Plurimi nervorum transversalium

arez marginalis pellucidi.” (Walsh.)

Long. corp. ¢ 9-13, @ 10-13; set. d 2 27-38, subim.

3 17, 9 13; exp.al. ¢ 24-29, 9 27-34 mm.

Hab.—Rock Island, Illinois (Walsh) .*

* Heptagenia vitrea.

Palingenia vitrea, Walk. 1853.

Subimago, vy. s.s. @. ‘*Testacea; femora fusco sub-notata; ale al-

bidx, sub-opace, nervis testaceis ’’ (Walker).

Long. corp. 6, exp. al. 12 mm.

Hab.—St. Martin’s Falls, Albany River, Hudson’s Bay.

This species can be recognized in no other way, than by comparing

specimens with the original type in the British Museum.

144 Rev. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Heptagenia nigrimana.

Ephemera nigrimana, Duf, 1841.

Imago, v. s. ¢&. ‘Subtestacea, oculis fusco-eeneis

flavo circumdatis; alis diaphanis, costa subflavescenti,

venis obscuris: abdomine testaceo, segmentis utrinque

lineola obscura obliqua; pedibus pallidis, anticis nigris ;

setis nigris.” (Duf.)

Long. corp. 5 lin. Gallic.

Hab.—Incog.; probably France.

Heptagenia flavipennis.

(Genitalia ¢@ 5 Pl. Vio fig. 17, vas 72 7 bees)

Ephemera flavipennis, Duf. 1841. Baetis cerea, Pict.

1843-5. B. longicauda, Hag. 1863; (nec Steph. 1835-6).

Subimago, v. v. s. 6. Oculi graminei. Ale acute

virescenti-flavee, marginibus terminalibus viridi-nigri-

canti anguste limbatis, atque strigis transversalibus dua-

bus interdum abruptis anticarum apices versus ejusdem

coloris; puncta nodalia costa subcosteeque, atque nervi

transversales in areze marginalis apice, atri. Pedes fur-

furosi, femoribus obscure carneo bicinctis, et tarsis

apicibusque tibiarum anticarum corvinis. Sete furfu-

rose, juncturis vix obscuris.

@. Caput macula trigonali utrique apud oculos supra

et infra obscura.

Imago, v. v. s. ¢. Oculi flavo-prasini, vel viridi-

olivacei. Thoracis tergum furfurosum. Al vitrine,

flavo-virenti suffusee, preecipue costas versus ; nervorum

longitudinales saturate virentes, transversales punctaque

nodalia atri. Pedes veluti in subimagine; tarsi antici

tamen brunneo-fuliginosi, apicibus articulorum obscuris.

Abdomen supra vel virescenti-griseum, vel flavo-virens,

vel sulphureum, apicibus segmentorum anguste corvinis,

atque tribus segmentorum apicalium furfurosis; subtus

immaculatum. Setz lutew, juncturis obscuris.

@?. Pallidior. Ale anticz vitrine, fulgore pruinoso,

areis marginalibus et submarginalibus virescenti-griseo

tinctis. Abdomen supra pallidissime virescenti-flavum,

apicibus segmentorum anguste corvinis. Ovivalvula

processusque ventralis penultimi segmentorum integri.

Se ——

on the Ephemeride. 145

Long. corp. ¢ 12-13, 9 14; al. gd 14-15, 2 17; set.

6 20-33, subim. 24, 2? 21 mm.

Hab.—The Kennet and Holybrook, near Reading ; and

the Lake of Geneva (Pict.). June and July. The sub-

imago rises mostly in the evening after sunset.

Heptagenia elegans.

(Genitalia g, Pl. VI. fig. 18; 2 18a, b.)

(?) Ephemera sulphurea, Mil. 1776= EL. helvola, Sulz.

1776=H. bioculata, Rom. 1789 (nec Lin.). (?) H. ferru-

ginea, Gmel. 1790-3. FH. bioculata, var. (7), Pz. 1804 (nec

lin.). Baetis elegans, costalis & straminea, Curt. 1834.

H. lutea, Ste. 1835-6 (nec Lin.). (7?) B. marginalis, Burm.

1839. B. cyanops & (¢) sulphurea, Pict. 1843-5. B. lu-

tea, Hag. 1863.

Subimago, v. v.s. Oculi saturate olivacei, vel gra-

minei; caput maculé parva utrinque infra oculos atra, at-

que alia rhombica supra juxta oculos lutea. Lineola pone

coxas anticas, et punctum ante poneque coxas interme-

dias utrinque, atra. Ale primo unicolores, sulphuree ;

tum striga transversalis vix distincta nascitur apud an-

gulum interno-terminalem ale antic, alteraque inter

hance et ale apicem, atque limbus griseus mediocris super

marginem terminalem; denique nervi transversales atri

fiunt. Pedes pallidissime ochracei, tarsis pallide nigri-

cantibus. Sete nigricantes.

Imago, v.v.s. o. Oculi supra saturate virescenti-

cesii, et subtus subgraminei, maculis singulis rotundis

mobilibus lineolis curvatis concentricis circumjectis ; vel

atri. Caput maculatum veluti in subimagine. ‘Thoracis

tergum furfurosum. Ale vitrine, fulgore pruinoso,

nervis plerumque corvinis vel atris ; antice areis margi-

nalibus et submarginalibus flavicantibus, apicibus vires-

centi-griseo tinctis. Pedes parum gambosi, vel flavo-

virescentes; antici furfuroso tincti, tarsis fumatis, et

juncturis tarsorum apicibusque femorum atris; posteri-

ores apicibus tibiarum et tarsis fumatis, juncturis atris.

Segmentorum abdominis sex priora supra pallide fusces-

centia, vel virescenti-olivacea, juncturis atro-piceis, sepe

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT 1. (MARCH.) L

146 Rey. A. EH. Eaton’s Monograph

vasi dorsali, lineisque curvatis ex basi cujusque duabus,

indistincte pallidioribus, atque lateribus ventreque palli-

dissime olivaceis; caetera supra furfurosa, subtus ochracea.

Sete albo-fumatze, juncturis fuscis.

?. Oculi prasini, vel glauci, vel etiam atri. Ale

vitrinee, parum sulphureo vel gamboso tinctve apud areas

marginales et submarginales, nisi in toto vix sulphuree ;

nervis atris, crassioribus longitudinalium gambosis ex-

ceptis. Pedes gambosi, tarsis fumatis, juncturis atris.

Dorsum abdominis flavo-virens vel flavo-ochraceum, junc-

turis obscuris, et tribus segmentorum apicalium flavis vel

ochraceis ; venter immaculatus. Setz albz, vel fumato-

albee, juncturis obscuris. Ovivalvula obtusa; processus

ventralis penultimi segmentorum paulo retusus.

Long. corp. ¢ 9-10, 2 9-11; al. ¢ 10-12, 29 11-13;

set. ¢ 19-23, 2 14-19, subim. ¢ & 2? 13-15 mm.

Hab.—Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Great Britain,

and Norway (Hammerfest). May to September; in

streams and rivers.

Heptagenia fluminum.

Ephemera bioculata, Pz. 1804 (nee Lin.). Baetis flu-

minum, Pict. 1845-5.

Subimago (e figura Pict.). ¢. “ Ale cervine; an-

terior striga transversali abbreviata ex angulo interno-

terminali, alteraque paulo postea e costa, deide lineis

transversalibus e costa tribus apicem versus, atque nebula

transversali inter strigas et basin, atrescentibus.”

Q. “ Ales virescenti-grisez, invarie.”

Imago, ¢. ‘ Oculicyanei (Pict.) vel graminei (Lab.

& Imh.). Thoracis tergum lutescens vel saturate furfu-

rosum. Ale vitrine, nervis tenuibus atris, et areis

marginalibus anticarum flavescenti tinctis. Pedes lutes-

centes, tarsis fuscescentibus. Abdomen lutescens, apici-

bus segmentorum et maculis trigonalibus latero-apicalibus

fuscis. Sete lutescentes vel furfurose, juncturis pallide

fuscis.”

2. “Simillima mari; abdominis segmenta singula

lineolis dorsalibus abbreviatis atris in mediis longitudi-

nalibus.”

on the Hphemeride. 147

Long. corp. ¢ 12-13, 9 12; set. ¢ 30, subim. 13,

? 20, subim. 13; exp. al. ¢ 25-27, 9 30 mm.

Hab.—Germany (Panzer) ; the Rhone about Geneva,

to the further extremity of the Lake. (Pict.)

Heptagenia sylvicola.

Baetis sylvicola, Ed. Pict. 1865.

Imago, y.s.s. ¢. “ Tergum thoracis luteum, meta-

thorace flavescenti. Als vitrine, nervis lutescentibus ;

apex ares marginalis flavescens. Pedes lutei; antici

nigricantes. Abdomen luteum, juncturis nigricantibus,

ultimoque segmentorum flavo. Seta fulvae a, Juncturis nigri-

cantibus. Forceps nigricans.” (Hd. Pict.) Venter serie

macularum trigonalium, quarum apices ante diriguntur.

9. “Simillima mari. Processus ventralis penultimi

segmentorum abdominis integer.” (Ed. Pict. & e fig.)

Long. corp. ¢ 12, 2 18; exp.al. ¢d 31, 9 33 mm.

Hab.—San Ildefonso, in July (Ed. Pict.).

Heptagenia volitans.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 20.)

H. volitans, Ktn. 1870.

Imago, v. v. s. 3. Oculi supra fusco-picei, subtus

testacel. Thoracis tergum atro-fuscum. Ale vitrine,

nervis atris, tribus prioribus longitudinalium nigricanti-

bus exceptis; apex are marginalis Vix virescenti-griseo

tinctus. Pedum antici tibiis tarsisque fuscis, et femoribus

obscure bicinctis; posteriores fumato-luridi, femoribus

saturate carneo bicinctis, tarsis fuscis, et interdum tibiis

testaceis. Abdomen supra fuscum, apicibus segmentorum

fuliginoso-fuscis, maculisque trigonalibus lateralibus satu-

rate virescenti-griseis : subtus satur ate virescenti- -griseum ;

immaculatum, vel perraro locis plexoram nervorum stri-

gisque sequentibus duabus vix obscure indicatis ; inter-

dum quoque infra penultimum segmentorum note L-for-

matz duz fusce sunt. Sete pallide virescenti-grisex,

juncturis atris vel atro-fuscis.

Long. corp. g¢ 12-15; al. 13-14; set. 25-28 mm.

Hab.—The Thames above Pangbourne, and the Holy-

brook near Reading; in May. ‘The name has reference

to a habit ot the Heptagenie of hovering steadily when

there is a gentle breeze.

148 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Heptagenia alpicola, nov. sp.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 19.)

Imago, v.v.s. 6. Oculi fuliginosi. Thoracis tergum

fusco-luteum. Al vitrine, nervis piceis, interdum are

marginalis apice nigricante. Pedes rufo-picei: antici

tarsis corvinis, vel tibiis et tarsis atris ; posteriores tarsis

paulo obscuratis, vel saturate piceis. Abdomen supra

luteum vel saturate griseum, marginibus latis segment-

orum apicalibus, strigaque in medio longitudinali, sub-

fuscis vel fuscis. Venter pallidus, striga longitudinali

angulatim in medio segmenti singuli dilatata subfusca ;

segmentorum penultimum luteum. Setz fuliginosz.

Forceps fumatus, proximis articulorum fuliginosis.

Long. corp. g 13-14; al. 15-16; set. 41-44 mm.

Hab.—Near Contamines, Val Montjoie; Carinthia.

Heptagenia iridana.

(?) Baetis aurantiaca, Burm. 1839.* B. iridana, Kolen.

1860.

Imago. “ Corpore rufo-brunneo, segmentis abdominis

dorsalibus postice late brunneo marginatis ; alis iridinis,

tribus nervorum anteriorum flavis, reliquis brunneis,

pterostigmate [%. ¢., apice areee marginalis | infuwmato vel

flavescenti. Venter luteo-brunneus, setis obscurior.”

(Kolen.)

Long. corp. 3°5; al. 5; set. 12.”

Hab.—Altwater, in August and September, at an alti-

tude of 4000 feet. The type is in the Royal Polytechnic,

Brunn.

Heptagenia annulifera.

Palingenia annulifera, Walk. 1860.

Imago, v.s.s. 9. Thorax furfurosus, lateribus pro-

et meta-thoracis dorsi pallidioribus. Ale vitrinz, nervis

* Burmeister’s diagnosis of B. aurantiaca is as follows:—

Imago. ‘“‘Rufo-testacea, segmentis abdominalibus utrinque linea obli-

qua nigra; alis gracilibus hyalinis.”’

Long. corp. 3°5 lin.

Hab.—Halle.

on the Ephemeride. 149

piceis, et horum transversalibus fusco marginatis. ‘‘ Pedes

albidi, [femoribus ] nigro-fasciatis.” Abdomen testaceum,

strigis singulis trigonalibus obliquis utrinque segment-

orum, punctisque dorsalibus atris. Sete cervine, junc-

turis atris. Processus ventralis penultimi segmentorum

integer.

Long. corp. ? 6; al. 8; set. supra 10 mm.

Hab.—Hindostan.

Heptagenia luridipennis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 21, 21a.)

(?) Ephemera noveboracana, Licht. 1796. Baetis lwridi-

pennis, Burm. 1839. (?) B. noveboracana, Hag. 1861.

Subimago, v.s.s. Ale pallide fusco tincte, nervis

obscuris.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thoracis tergum brunneo-luteum ;

abdomen paulo obscurius. Ale vitrine, crassioribus

nervorum longitudinalium brunneis vel testaceis, et

transversalibus piceis ; apices arez marginalis et ares

submarginalis paulo infuscati. Pedum antici sub-testacei

vel gambosi, femoribus obscure bicinctis, apicibus tibia-

rum fuscis, et tarsis pallidis; posteriores pallidiores.

Abdomen supra brunneo-luteum, vel fuscum, apicibus

segmentorum strigisque lateralibus obliquis obscuris.

Setz pallidissime cervine, juncturis obscuris.

9. Simillima mari. Venter immaculatus. Processus

ventralis penultimi segmentorum emarginatus esse

videtur. .

ona." corp. 6 11,°2 103-al. ¢ 13, 9 15; ‘set. dg

circa 25, ? subim. circa 15 mm.

Hab.—St. Martin’s Falls, Albany River, Hudson’s

Bay (Barnston); the St. Lawrence, Canada (De Selys).

Heptagenia flaveola.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 22, 22a.)

Baetis jflaveola, Pict. 1843-5.

Subimago, v.s.s. Alee cervino-albz; nervorum longi-

tudinales testacei, transversales in mari nigricantes, in

femina atri.

150 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

Imago, v. s. s. ¢. Thoracis tergum rufo-luteum.

Alee vitrine ; anticze nervis atris, tribus prioribus longi-

tudinalium testaceis exceptis ; posticee nervis pellucidis.

Pedes lividi vel straminei, femoribus fusco bicinctis,

juncturisque obscuris ; tarsi antici albicantes, juncturis

obscuris. Abdomen tribus segmentorum apicalium rufo-

luteis, et ceteris ochroleucis juncturis fuscis ; venter

immaculatus. Sets albo-cervine, juncturis vix obscuris.

@. Corpus ochraceum, juncturis abdominalibus an-

guste nigricantibus. Processus ventralis penultimi seg-

mentorum vix emarginatus. Al fulgore fere talcoso.

Long. corp. ¢ 9, ? 8-10; al. ¢ 10, ? 11-18; set.

3 20, 2 subim. 16 mm.

Hab.—St. Martin’s Falls (Barnston); Tennessee (Poep-

pig) ; West Farms, New York (Angus, MS.).

Heptagenia vicaria.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 23, 23a.)

Baetis vicaria, Walk. 1853 (imago). (?) B. tessellata,

Walk. 1853 (subimago, ¢ ).*

Subimago ? (tessellata, Walk.),v. s. s. Ale pallidis-

sime fusco suffuse, nervis testaceo-brunneis, et horum

transversalibus fuliginoso marginatis.

Imago, v.s.s. ¢. Thoracis tergum brunneo-luteum.

Ale vitrine, nervis fuscescentibus ; apex arez marginalis

antice pallidissime fuscescente vel virescenti- griseo

tinctus. Abdomen supra pallide fuscum: dorsum ven-

terque utrinque serie signorum 6-formatorum fulvorum,

* From one or two particulars in the description, I am inclined to think

that Baetis tessellata, Hag., may be a Leptophlebia. It may be L. colom-

bie, Walk., on the point of casting the subimaginal pellicle.

Baetis tessellata, Hag. 1861; (nec. Walk. 1853).

Subimago. @. “Als grisew, nervis luridis, et maculis quadratis pellu-

cidis numerosis; postice minime. Thorax luteus; mesothorax linea

fusca utrinque. Pedes lutei, apicibus tarsorum fuscis. Abdominis seg-

menta lutea, maculis trigonalibus latero-dorsalibus utrinque fuscis dua-

bus.” (Hag.)

Long. corp. 2 16, exp. al. 26 mm.

Hab.—Puget Sound, Washington Territory (Hag.).

As the type is in alcohol (in the Berlin Museum) its affinities can be

easily determined.

on the Ephemeride. 151

et apud basin segmenti singuli supra lineole pallida

longitudinales dus sunt. Sete fusce, juncturis obscuris.

Pedes saturate rubiginosi, femoribus bicinctis,

?. Processus ventralis penultimi segmentorum in-

teger.

Hong. corp. ¢ 12; aly ¢ 13, 9 14°35; set. 35 mm.

Hab.—The St. Lawrence; Chicago; Washington (Ha-

gen); Savannah (Osten Sacken).

Heptagenia venosa.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 24.)

(?) Ephemera maculata, Pod. 1761. EH. venosa, Fab.

1775. (?) EH. berolinensis, Mul. 1776. EH. fusco-grisea,

Retz. 1783. H. nervosa,* Vill. 1789. Baetis dispar, Curt.

1834. B. venosa, Ste. 1835-6. H. rufa, Ramb. 1842.

(?) B. purpurascens & forcipula, Pict. 1843-5. B. longi-

cauda, Ron. 1856 (nec Ste.). Hedyurus venosus, Etn. 1868.

Subimago, v. v.s. Ale pallidissime cervine, nervis

transversalibus fuscis nigricanti marginatis, fasciis trans-

versalibus pallidis indistinctis duabus trajectis; area

submarginalis areszeque marginalis apex flavescenti tincti,

fasciis obscuris interrupti. Pedes cinereo-olivacei, tarsis

cinereis. Setze fuscee.

Imago, v.v.s. <¢. Oculi supra atro-picei, vel picei ;

subtus apud orbitas ochracei, linea griseainterposita. Tho-

racis tergum fuscum. Al vitrine, nervis corvinis ; apex

are marginalis nigricanti tinctus. Pedum antici fusco-

corvini, tarsis corvinis ; posteriores saturate virescenti-

grisel, genubus. tarsisque corvinis. Abdomen supra

fuscum, vel fuliginoso-hepaticoloratum, latera versus pal-

lide testaceum, strigis lateralibus fuscis obliquis ; subtus

saturate brunneo-hepaticoloratum. Sete fusce.

@. Mari simillima. Processus ventralis penultimi

segmentorum integer.

Long. corp. g 12-14, 2? 12-18; al. 6 18, 2 15-17;

set. g 30-48, 9 15, subim. 17 mm.

Hab.—Scandinavia (Zet.); England; Belgium (De

Selys); France ; Switzerland; Dalmatia (Pict.); Corsica

(Hag.). Instreams. June.

* M. Pictet (1843-5) unfortunately cited this synonyme as one origi-

nated by Fabricius.

152 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Var. (?) forcipula.

(Baetis forcipula, Pict. 1843-5.)

Hab.—Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Bavaria, and Pied-

mont (Pict.). Undescribed.

Specimens probably exist in the Vienna Museum.

Heptagenia longicauda.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 25.)

Baetis longicauda & subfusca, Ste. 1835-6.

Subimago, v. v.s. ¢?. Ale pallide fumato-nigricantes,

nervis sub-furfurosis, transversalibus anguste cinereo mar-

ginatis. Pedum antici picei, tibiis nigricanti tinctis, et

tarsis anthracinis ; posteriores femoribus olivaceis, tibiis

nigricantibus, et tarsis corvimis.

Imago, v. v. s. ¢. Oculi atro-fuliginosi. Thoracis

tergum aterrimum, vel atro-fuscum, politum. Alz vel

vitrine, vel vix virescenti-griseo tinctz, nervis atro-

piceis: apex ares marginalis antice vix virescenti-

griseus. Pedum antici atro-picei, femoribus apud bases

pallidioribus ; posteriores femoribus fuscis, vel fusco-

luteis, tibiis testaceis, et tarsis vel corvinis vel saturate

hepaticoloratis. Abdomen supra umbrinum vel rubido-

fuscum, juncturis pallidis, et apicibus segmentorum fuscis ;

latera dorsi bases segmentorum versus flavescentia, stri-

gis singulis saturate fuscis obliquis ex horum apicibus ;

venter fuliginoso-hepaticoloratus. Sete et forceps atro-

piceze.

@. Simillima mari sed pallidior. Ale vitrine, nervis

fusco-piceis: arez marginalis et submarginalis antice

tantum apices versus vix virescenti-griseo tinctz. Pro-

cessus ventralis penultimi segmentorum integer.

Long. corp. ¢ 11-12, ¢ 9; al. d 11, 9 I-15; set,

6 27, 2 15, subim. 12 mm.

Hab.—Great Britain. July to September. In cold

streams and rivers.

Heptagenia angustipennis.

Lphemera angustipennis, Ramb. 1842; Baetis angusti-

pennis, Ed. Pict. 1865.

Subimago, v.s.s. 2. Ale cervine ; nervorum longi-

tudinales testacei, transversales nigricantes, anguste mar-

on the Ephemeride. 153

ginati. Pedes lutescentes, femoribus obscure annulatis,

anticis tibiarum luteis, posterioribus testaceis, et tarsis

fuscis. Sete fuliginosze.

Imago, (?) (Hphemera madritensis, Ramb. MS.) v. s.s.

?. Thoracis tergum luteum. Ale vitrine; nervorum

longitudinales testacei, transversales picei. Pedes postici

femoribus luteis, singulis cingulis nigris, tibiis testaceis,

et tarsis luteis. Processus ventralis penultimi segment-

orum vix retusus.

Long. al. im. 14, subim. 11 mm.

Hab.—Madrid (Ramb.).

Heptagenia Picteti.

Baetis Picteti, Meyer-Dir, 1864,

Subimago,s.s. ‘“ Ale albicantes, nervis longitudina-

libus atro-fuliginosis, et ceteris atris ; antica parte tertia

basali, fasciisque transversalibus quatuor (quarum prima

atque tertia abbreviatz sunt), et vestigio quoque quintz

apud apicem, griseis. Tergum thoracis fuscum, politum.

Pedes fuscescentes, cruribus pallidioribus. Abdomen

fuscum, juncturis pallidis. Setz albicantes, annulis

pallidis.”

Long. corp. 5°5, al. 7, set. 5-6 lin.

Hab.—Tessin and Ober Engadine (Meyer-Diir).

Heptagenia insignis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 26, 26a; note ventrales

abdominis, fig. 26b.)

Baetis nontana, Hag. 1863; (nee Pict.). H. insignis,

Etn. 1870.

Subimago, v. v. s. Alze pallide cervine, apud bases

et costas vix sulphureo tinctz, nervis ipsis sulphureis vel

olivaceis ; antica apud marginem terminalem cinerea,

marginibus nervorum transversalium atris.

Imago, v.v.s. g & 9. Oculi sub-olivacei, strigis

singulis fuscis intersectis. Thoracis tergum fuscum vel

sub-olivaceum [piceum in s. s.]. Ale vitrine, nervis

piceis, costis et subcostis plus aut minus fuscis: arez

anterioris marginalis et submarginalis vix virescenti-

griseo bases versus tinctz, apicibus nigricantibus. Pedum

antici atro-picei vel corvini, juncturis apicalibus tarsorum

154 Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

pallidioribus; posteriores sub-olivacei, vel virescenti-

olivacel, tarsis atrescentibus. Abdomen sub-olivaceum,

vel pallide virescenti-griseum, apice lutescenti; segmen-

torum apices, strigeeque laterales ex his oblique producte,

atri ; seepe quoque series centralis est femine strigarum

brevium nigricantium: venter maculatus similiter ac in

Tab. VI., fig. 26b, effingitur. Sete atre, piceze apices

versus. Forceps corvinus. Processus ventralis penul-

timi segmentorum integer.

Long. corp. ¢ 11-12, 9 12-14; exp. al. ¢ 13-17,

? 13-15; set. Gg 22-23, subim. 14-20, 9? 20, subim.

15 mm.

Hab.—Kngland. May, June, and July or August. In

rivers.

Heptagenia montana.

Baetis montana, Pict. 1843-5.

Imago, v. s. ¢. “Caput nigrum, oculis cyaneis.

Prothorax supra rufescens, macula in medio nigri: meso-

et meta-thoraces supraatri. Alee vitrine, nervis tenuibus

nigris; apex arez marginalis antice fuscescens. Pedum

antici nigri: posteriores fulvyi. Abdomen supra griseo-

fuscum (in figuri ochraceo-olivaceum, juncturis et strigis

lateralibus obliquis obscuris), setis fuscis ” (Pict.).

Long. corp. ¢ 13, set. 30, exp. al. 28 mm.

Hab.—Near a small stream from Brevent, above Cha-

mounix (Pict.); and on the Austrian mountains (Brauer) .

Heptagenia Bellieri.

Baetis Bellierit, Hag. 1860.

Imago, v.s.s. 9%. Ale vitrine, lacteo tincte, nervis

piceis; apex areee marginalis paulo infuscatus. Pedum

antici picei; posteriores testacei, tarsis fuscis. Seta

piceze. Processus ventralis penultimi segmentorum in-

teger.

Long. al. 14 mm.

Hab.—Sicily (Hag.). According to Dr. Hagen, this

species somewhat resembles the preceding one in colour.

on the Hphemeride. 155

Heptagenia zebrata.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 28.)

Baetis zebrata (fo subim., 2 im.), fallax (¢ subim.),

fluminum [nec Pict.] (¢ im.), Hag. 1864.

Subimago, v.s.s. ¢. Ale cervine; nervorum longi-

tudinales testacei, transversales per-anguste nigro mar-

ginati,

Imago, v.s.s. &. Thoracis tergum fuscum. Ale vi-

trine, nervis piceis. Pedum antici femoribus fuscescen-

tibus, cingulis et apicibus atro-piceis, tibis atro-piceis, et

tarsis fuliginosis; posteriores femoribus fusco-testaceis,

cingulis in mediis et apicibus sub-piceis, cruribusque

fuliginosis. Abdomen supra pallide olivaceo-fuscum,

latera versus flavescens, apicibus segmentorum anguste

piceis. Setze fuligimosee.

?. Thoracis tergum furfurosum. Ale vitrine, cras-

sioribus nervorum longitudinalium testaceis, et trans-

versalibus atris. Pedes lutescenti-electrini, cingulis et

apicibus femorum nigris. Abdomen supra fuscum, api-

cibus segmentorum obscuris; strigee laterales oblique e

basibus segmentorum utrinque atre; subtus segmentum

singulum maculis trigonalibus basalibus duabus atris.

Setz albicantes, juncturis nigris. Processus ventralis

penultimi segmentorum integer.

Long. al. ¢ 9-10, 2 12; set. g¢ 20, subim. 12, 2

15 mm.

Hab.—Corsica (Hag.).

Heptagenia lateralis.

(Genitalia maris, Pl. VI. fig. 27.)

(?) Ephemera stigma, Gmel. 1790-3. Baetis lateralis,

Curt. 1834. Cloe brunnea, Ramb. 1842. B. obscura,

Hag. 1863 ; (?) Pict. 1843-5 ; (nec Ste.).

Subimago, v. s.s. Ale saturate cervine, invari ;

interdum tamen tribus prioribus nervorum longitudina-

lium ochraceis.

Imago, y. v. s. 6. Oculi atro-fuliginosi. Pedum

antici atro-fusci, cruribus atro-piceis; posteriores sub-

156 Rey. A. E. Eaton’s Monograph

fusci, tarsis piceis. Nervi alarum fusci. Venter vires-

centi-fuliginosus; forceps ater; setee saturate fuliginosz.

Reliqua veluti in femina.

?. Oculi atro-fuliginosi. Thoracis tergum aterrimum,

politum. Alze vitrine, nervis piceis. Pedum antici atro-

picei, tarsis atris ; posteriores saturate picei, femoribus

vix annulatis, et tarsis atris. Abdomen supra hepatico-

fuscum, apicibus segmentorum vix obscuris, nisi ma-

culis trigonalibus apud latera obscuris: venter fuscus,

juncturis virescenti-griseis, et interdum plexu nervorum

ventralium penultimi segmentorum vix hepaticolorato.

Setze corvine. Processus ventralis penultimi segmento-

rum integer.

Long. corp. ¢ 5-9, 2? 7; exp.al. d 2? 6-9; set. o

19, subim. 10, 9? 8 mm.

Hab.—KEngland and Wales; Carinthia; Switzerland

(Pict.); the South of Spain (Ramb.). July and August.

In mountain torrents, and cold streams.

M. Pictet’s description of B. obscura was probably

drawn up from a dried specimen.

Heptagenia guttata.

Baetis guttata, Pict. 1843-5; Hphemera (Baetis) guttata,

Blanch. 1851.

Imago, s.s. ¢. Caput et thorax fusci, flavo varie-

gati (‘‘ punctati,” Pict.). Alze vitreee, nervis atris ; area

marginalis pallidissime fuscescens. Pedes flavescentes ;

femora apicibus maculisque singulis in mediis, tibizeque

apicibus, nigris. Abdomen flavum (in figura fuscum),

apicibus segmentorum strigisque lateralibus ex his obli-

que productis, atque seriebus strigarum longitudinalium

supra subtusque duabus, atris. Sete flavescentes, junc-

turis in vices late et anguste nigro annulatis.” (Pict. &

Blanch.)

Long. corp. 2 12, set. 18, exp. al. 29 mm.

Hab.—Valdivia, Chili (Blanch.).

The following is probably an indeterminable species of Heptagenia.

Ephemera gemmata, Scop. 1768.

Imago,s.s. 9. “HE. gemmata. Tubercula tria frontalia, diaphana,

crystallina, nigra, punctulata [ocelli]. Corpusrufum. Ineisure abdomi-

nis marginibus flavicantibus. Setz caudales unciales.”’

Long. 7:5.’

Hab.—Circa aqueductum Fodinarum Idrensium (Scop.).

on the Hphemeride. 157

Heptagenia torrida.

Baetis torrida, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v.s.s. @. Thoracis tergum castaneo-piceum.

Ale vix fusco suffuse: antica areis marginali submargi-

nalique saturatioribus. Pedum antici rufo-picei; pos-

teriores saturate furfurosi, apicibus femorum rufo-piceis.

Abdomen (decoloratum) apicibus segmentorum obscuris ;

setis carens. Processus ventralis penultimi segmentorum

integer.

Long. corp. ? 8, exp. al. circa 20 mm.

Hab.—The Philippine Islands.

Heptagenia determinata.

Baetis determinata, Walk. 1853.

Imago, v.s. s. @. (reliquie typi). Picea. Thorax

striga dorsali longitudinali fulva. Ale vitrine: antica

costa’ apud basin saturate ochraced, nervis fuscis, atque

areis marginali submarginalique quasi incrassatis et

fuscis. Pedes furfurosi, tarsis et apicibus femorum fuscis.

“Abdomen striga lata flavescenti, notis paucis piceis

inclausis.”” (Walk.)

Long. corp. ¢ 11, al. 24 mm.

Hab.—Java.

In this genus the cross-veinlets in the apex of the

marginal area of the anterior wing vary in character in

the same species, so much so, that they may be simple

and free, or divided and conjoimed, in either sex of a

species, indifferently. Sometimes, however, they are of

shght service. H. elegans and some other yellowish

species have two evanescent dark triangular dorsal

dashes between the wings of the subimago, which I have

purposely omitted to mention in the descriptions.

158

Rev. A. HE. Eaton’s Monograph

EXPLICATIO TABULARUM.

Signum asterisci * iis figuris appositum est quas ex aliis operibus

recepimus; omnes relique icones sunt originales, a nobis secundum

naturam operose camera lucida delineate, et magnitudine aucte.

Fig. *1.

OED NS? Ue

Tab. I. Venez alarum anticarum.

Lachlanie abnormis.

Oligoneurie rhenane.

Asthenopi (sp. nondescript.); in Mus. M’Lach.; de Texas.

Campsuri latipennis (in parte).

Polymitarcyos virginis.

Pentagenie vittigerc.

Hexagenic limbate (in parte).

Euthyplocie Hecube (in parte); 8a, apex ale.

Ephemere vulgate (in parte).

Fragmentum fossile Oolithicum, speciei generis incerti Ephe-

mere affinis, de Solenhofen. Ex exemplari in Museo Brit-

tannico; magnitud. auct. (7x7).

Tab. II. Vene alarum anticarum.

Potamanthi lutei (in parte).

Leptophlebie australasice.

. Leptophlebie marginate (in parte).

2b. Leptophlebiw cwpide (in parte).

2c. Leptophlebte fusce.

*3. Tricorythi varicaude, 9.*38a g.

4. Cenis dimidiate.

5. Ephemerelle ignite (in parte).

6. Betisce obese (in parte).

7. Cloeonis similis (in parte).

8. Centroptili luteoli (in parte).

9. Baetis binoculati.

* Note :—

Tab: Tefen]... ISMLrOM ec. Packard’s Guide to the Study of Insects.

Fig. 578.

Tab. II. fig. 3, 3a 9 Savigny’s Description de l’Egypte (1817),

Tab. IL. fig. 6, 7.

Tab. III. fig. 7a-8c ne Dr. Hagen, in Stet. Ent. Zeit. (1855), Tab. I.

Tab. III. fig. 17a oA C. Cornelius (1848).

Tab. Y. fig. 30 5S Kd. Pictet, in Synopsis des Névropteres

d’Espagne, Tab. IIT. fig. 1.

Tab. VI. fig. 8 Ay Hagen, in Berendt’s Organische Reste im

Bernstein (1856) Bd. II. Tab. VI. fig. 1.

on the Hphemeride. 159

TAB, ILE

Figs. 1-5. Vene alarum anticarum.

Fig. 1. Baetis (sp. nondescript.) in parte ; de California.

2. Stphluri lacustris.

8. Coloburi humeralis.

4. Isonychie mance.

5. Heptagenie elegantis.

6. Mensura gallica (centimetres and millimetres).

6a. +p anglicana (inches and lines).

7. Oligoneurie rhenane, g im. genitalia infra.

* 7a. 5 es » caput oblique.

* 8, + pallida, 3 aS

* 8a A 55 » penis.

* 8b. 5p on », pes forcipis.

* 8c. a 5 ? im. processus ventralis penultimi seg-

mentorum.

9. 3 Trimeniane,,, processus ventralis penult. segm.

infra.

9a. 7 x 3 processus ventralis penult. segm.

oblique.

10. Campsuri latipennis, g im. genitalia infra.

10a. ”? ” cB 13

ile of albifili, Fr 3

12. ‘5 cuspidati, + 5

S13: 53 quadridentaté, ,, $9

14. Asthenopi curti, 3 -

Mais sg. sy s, partes apicales penis.

15. Polymitarcyos virginis, ,, pes forcipis.

lia. 7 oF subim. 3

15b. . a im. penis.

16. 3 Savignit, ,, pes forcipis.

16a. - fc >, penis.

17. Palingenie longicaude, ,, pes forcipis.

*17a op aS 3 +~-penis.

18-18a. "3 late, » pes forcipis; subim. & im.

18b. a Pe »» penis infra.

TAB. IY.

Fig. 1. Pentagenie vittigere, g im. genitalia infra.

2. Hexagenie albivittate, ,, #

2a. F, + » pedis forcipis articuli apicales.

3. a limbate, »» pes forcipis.

3a. » pedis forcipis articuli apicales.

160

Rev. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Tas. 1V.—contin.

Fig. 4. Hexagenie bilineate, g im. pes forcipis.

5. Ephemere vulgate,

5a.

5b.

lla.

12.

12a.

”

guttulate,

lineate,

”

danice,

bb]

glaucopis,

immaculate,

fasciate,

serice,

bP)

13. Potamanthi lutei,

13a.

14,

14a.

14b.

15.

lda.

15b.

16.

16a.

16b.

Cf,

17a.

17b.

18.

18a,

18b.

18c.

18d.

19.

20.

20a.

20b.

20c.

”

Leptophlebic australis,

”

australasice,

”

furcifere,

”

inconspicuck,

”

dentate,

”

” g

”

strigate,

nodularis, ¢

genitalia infra.

penis.

maculz dorsales abdominis.

genitalia infra.

pedis forcipis articuli apicales.

macule dorsales abdominis.

genitalia infra.

pedis forcipis articuli apicales.

not dorsales abdominis.

genitalia infra.

macule dorsales abdominis.

pes forcipis.

”

penis oblique.

genitalia infra.

pes forcipis.

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

penis.

apex aree marginalis al. ant.

pes forcipis.

pedis forcipis articuli apicales.

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

apex aree marginalis.

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

apex are marginalis.

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

pedis forcipis articuli apicales.

penis infra.

. apex processus ventralis penult.

segment.

apex arez marginalis.

latus processus ventralis penult.

segment.

. pes forcipis.

ala postica.

penis oblique.

penis infra (haud appendiculatus).

Fig. 21.

21a.

22.

22a.

23.

23a.

23b.

24,

24a.

24b.

- 25.

25a.

25b.

26.

26a.

26b.

26c.

264.

27.

27a.

28.

28a.

29.

29a.

29b.

3b.

4. Canis macrure,

on the Hphemeride. 161

Tas. [V.—contin.

Leptophlebie scite,

”?

”

3 im. pes forcipis.

Taprobanes, ,,

”

annulate,

”

auriculate,

”

marginate,

”»

”

helwipedis,

cincte,

”

mollis,

”

cupide,

”

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

penis oblique.

pes forcipis.

pedis forcipis apex.

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

penis infra.

ala postica.

pes forcipis.

pedis forcipis apex.

penis infra appendiculatus.

pes forcipis.

penis supra.

penis oblique.

pedis forcipis apex.

ala postica.

genitalia infra.

pedis forcipis apex.

forceps infra.

latus penis infra.

pes forcipis.

penis infra.

? im. processus ventralis penult. seg-

ment.

APAIB SV

Leptophlebia nebulose, g im. pes forcipis infra.

”

fusce,

”

modeste,

”

dimidiate,

luctuose,

latis penis infra.

pes forcipis.

penis infra.

ala postica.

pes forcipis infra.

penis infra.

penis oblique.

genitalia infra.

forceps et membrana infra geni-

talia.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—pPaRTI. (MARCH.) M

162 Rey. A. E. Haton’s Monograph

Tas. V.—contin,

Fig. 7. Ephemerelle ignite, ¢ im. genitalia infra.

7a. 33 .. >, ala postica.

8. a anvarie, » pes forcipis.

8a. A A ss penis infra.

9. Betisce obese, » genitalia infra.

10. Cloeonis dipteri, » pes forcipis.

Nk » similis, 3, pes forcipis.

12. » russult, »» pes forcipis.

[13-26, pedes forcipium; 13a-26a, alee postice :] —

13, 13a. Centroptili luteoli, am:

14, 14a. an pennulati, 4,

15, 15a. i stenopterygis, g im.

16, 16a. Baetis binoculati, g im.

Ife Ura » scambi, a

18, 18a. » jfunitimi,

19, 19a. » atrebatini, ,,

20, 20a. » hodam, ,,

21, 21a. 3. pheopis, ep

22, 22a. » tenacis, 55

23, 23a. > bucerati, *

24, 24a, » «amnict, 5

25, 25a. » pumil, a

26, 26a. 9 «6 nigr4, ‘5

27. » pict, 5

28. » Sp. nondescript. de California, ala postica. (Pro ala

antica vide Tab. III. fig. 1.)

29. » Sp. nondescript. ex Australia, ala postica.

*30. Siphluri flavidi, g im. apex abdominis supra.

TAB. Wil.

Fig. 1. Siphluwri armati, g im. pes forcipis infra.

la. 3 . >, latus penis infra.

2. lacustris, 3 pes forcipis infra.

3. 33 Linneani, ,, pes forcipis infra.

3a. is A »» note ventrales abdominis.

4. # annulati, ,, note ventrales abdominis.

4a. 3 ip » pes forcipis infra.

5. Isonychie mance, »» pes forcipis infra.

5a. 5p a ? 5, processus ventralis penult. seg-

ment.

Fig. 6.

6a.

6b.

12a.

13a.

13b.

14a.

15a.

17a.

17b.

17e.

18a.

18b.

on the Ephemeride.

Tas. VI.—contin.

Coloburi humeralis, im.

bP] ” 29

” ”» ©. 2?

» haleutict, Cis

2 3 br

Cronici anomali, '

Heptagewie semicolorate, ,,

39 nivate, op

a borealis, ay

of canadensis, 4,

” ” 39

As fusce, =

bbs ”? ”

bb) ” 3”

- cupulate, oH

”» ” ”

p basalis, op

» ” »

Be flavescentis, ,,

3 flavipennis, 45

7 » o& subim.

” 22 2 im.

” 9 3”

33 elegantis, g im.

” 2? a im.

39 ” ”

“5 alpicole, im.

As volitantis, ,y,

5 luridipennis, 5,

3” ” ”

op flaveola, se

3” ” ?

$5 vicarie, ne

2 ”» ”

35 venos@, es

5 longicaude, 4,

9 insignis, a

” ” ”

pes forcipis oblique.

penis infra. *

processus ventralis penult.

ment.

pes foreipis oblique.

penis apex infra.

forceps infra.

genitalia infra.

latus penis supra.

penis supra.

penis infra.

pedis forcipis apex.

genitalia infra.

latus penis supra.

pes forcipis infra.

penis supra.

genitalia infra.

penis infra.

processus ventralis apex.

ovivalyule apex.

genitalia infra.

processus ventralis apex.

ovivalyula apex,

genitalia infra.

penis.

penis infra.

pes forcipis.

penis infra.

latus penis supra.

genitalia infra.

penis.

note ventrales abdominis.

163

seg-

164 Rey. A. H. Eaton on the Ephemeride.

Tas. VI.—contin.

Fig. 27. Heptagenie lateralis, g im. genitalia infra.

28. ay zebrate, » genitalia infra.

29. Isonychie ignote, » apex penis infra,

ADDENDA.

Page 47. To Centroptilum luteolum, add Hudson’s Bay Territory.

To Centroptilum pheops, add Norway (Hammerfest and Alten).

Page 68, note.* Add—Ephemerum, Tournefort (1694-1700) =Tradescan-

tia, Lin., is the typical genus of Ephemere, Batsch (1802)

=Commelynacee, an Order of Endogens. Hphemerum,

Dodon (Ersch & Griiber) or Reichenbach (Lindley) =

Lysimachia, Lin., a genus of Primulacee.

Page 134. In Isonychia, the termination -onychia is adopted on account

of -onyx being used as a generic termination in the names

of some Chelonii. Ephemera pudica, Hag., is almost cer-

tain to be identical with I. manca; this species often has a

close reticulation contiguous to the veins of the inner mar-

gin of the fore-wing, somewhat like that in the wing of

Polymitarcys.

( 165 )

Il. New Species of Diurnal Lepidoptera from South and

Central America. By W. C. Hewirson, F.L.S.

{Read 2nd January, 1871.]

Heterochroa Makkeda.

Male. .Upperside: dark brown. Both wings crossed

obliquely by a broad band from the costal margin of the

anterior wing to the abdominal fold of the posterior wing ;

orange on the anterior wing, and divided by the nervures

into eight parts, the fourth part projecting beyond the

rest towards the apex ; white on the posterior wing, with

its outer border broadly orange. Anterior wing with some

black lines and an orange band in and below the cell,

and a subapical bifid orange spot; crossed by two sub-

marginal rufous bands. Posterior wing crossed by three

similar bands ; an orange spot at the anal angle, marked

by two black spots.

Underside: as above, except that it is rufous-brown,

that the bands and spots are all white or lilac-white; that

the anterior wing has the central band broken into spots

by a rufous line, a third subapical spot, and a triangular

bifid white spot at the base, and that the posterior wing

has two white bands across the base, and covering the

abdominal fold, and a short linear band between them

and the central band.

Exp. 2,4, inches.

Hab.—Pari. In the collection of W. C. Hewitson.

Easily known from all the other species by having the

central band of the posterior wing divided longitudinally

into white and red. On the underside it scarcely differs

from H. Hrotia.

Heterochroa Zalmona.

Male. Upperside: dark brown. Anterior wing with

indistinct bands of paler colour in and below the cell;

crossed transversely near the middle from the costal

margin to near the anal angle, by a slightly indented

band of orange, divided into seven parts by the nervures ;

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—partT lt. (MAY.) N

66 Mr. W. C. Hewitson on

five indistinct subapical spots. Posterior wing crossed

obliquely by four bands of paler colour, converging to-

wards the anal angle, the fourth band submarginal.

Underside: rufous, clouded with brown towards the

outer margins of both wings. Anterior wing with a bifid

spot at the base, an oblong spot bordered with black in

the middle of the cell, aud four small spots below these,

all silvery-white ; the band of the upperside and five

subapical spots white. Posterior wing crossed before the

middle by two parallel bands of silvery-white, the band

nearest the base broken in the middle; crossed at the

middle by a band of black, and beyond the middle by a

submarginal band of seven silvery-white spots.

Exp. 2,1, inches.

Hab.—New Granada. In the collection of W. W.

Saunders and W. C. Hewitson.

Nearly allied to I. Hpione, which, instead of having the

transverse white bands of equal breadth, parallel to each

other, and slightly curved towards the base as in this

species, has the second band very broad, and with its

outer border curved towards the outer margin of the

wing.

Hurygona argentea.

Male. Upperside: dark brown. Anterior wing rufous

below the median nervure, from the base towards the

middle of the wing, where it ends in a more distinct

round spot. Posterior wing with a longitudinal rufous

band from the base to the outer margin.

Underside: silvery-white. Anterior wing with four

transverse bands, and the outer margin, dark brown.

Posterior wing crossed by six brown bands, all tending

towards the anal angle: two from the base, a third from

the costal margin united to the fourth, which runs near

the inner margin, the other two submarginal, the outer

one marked by a small black spot; the outer margin

black, marked by a large orange spot.

Exp. 1 in.

Hab.—Nicaragua (Chontales). In the collection of

Thomas Belt.

Unlike any other species, and one of the most beautiful.

Diurnal Lepidoptera. 167

Pyrrhopyga Crida.

Upper and underside: blue-black. The head and anus

scarlet; the antenne black. Anterior wing crossed trans-

versely at the middle, from the sub-costal nervure to near

the anal angle, by a narrow, trifid, transparent, glossy

white band.

Exp. 2 inches.

Hab.—Nicaragua (Chontales). In the collection of

Thomas Belt.

Pyrrhopyga eximia.

Upperside. Anterior wing dark green-brown, with a

spot in the cell, and an oblique, continuous, very trans-

parent, and highly polished white band, beyond the mid-

dle, nearly parallel to the outer margin, extending from

the costal margin to the submedian nervure, and divided

into seven parts by the nervures. Posterior wing pale

yellow, tinted with orange towards the base ; the base, a

central transverse band, the nervures, and the inner and

outer margins dark brown.

Underside: as above, except that there is a subcostal

ochreous band on the anterior wing, and that the brown

on the outer margin of the posterior wing is much nar-

rower.

Exp. 2 inches.

Hab.—Venezuela (Géring). In the collection of W.

C. Hewitson.

( 169 )

III. Descriptions of a new genus and six new species of

Pierine. By A. G. Burize, F.L.S., &c.

[Read 6th February, 1871.)

THE new genus and new species described in this paper

are as under :—

Ivias venatus : ; ; White Nile.

Kricogonia Fantasia. : Nicaragua.

Callidryas fornax : : Chili.

a Jaresia : : Para.

Euchloé imonea. : Mexico.

Larinopoda (n. g.) lyccenoides West Africa.

Genus Ixras, Hubner.

Iwas venatus,n. sp. (Pl. VII. fig. 7.)

Wings above, creamy-white ; front-wings with base

broadly dusky; a dark brown disco-cellular spot, the

apex, outer margin, extremities of nervures,a round spot

between second and third median branches, and an

arched streak connecting it with apical patch, dark-

brown ; hind-wings with a brown disco-cellular point ;

the outer half of nervures dusky; seven triangular mar-

ginal dark brown spots at extremities of nervures: body

blackish: wings below, pale ochreous ; front-wings with

interno-discal area white; base sulphur-yellow; disco-

cellular spot as above; costa, outer half of nervures, a

streak across subcostals, and a spot between median

branches as above, dark brown; hind-wings with basal

costa orange, nervures blackish, spots as above; an

arched lunulate streak, parallel to outer margin from

costa to below first median branch: body white.

Expanse of wings, 1 inch, 11 lines.

Hab.—White Nile. (Petherick.) Coll. B. M.

Most nearly allied to I. Hulimene, but very distinct

from any described species.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT ul. . (MAyY.)

170 Mr. A. G. Butler on

Genus Kricogonta, Reakirt.

Kricogonia Fantasia, n. sp. (Pl. VII. fig. 6.)

9. Wings above, greenish-white ; front-wings with

the basal costa dusky sulphur-yellow ; a pale brown mar-

ginal band beginning broad on costa, and tapering to

near the anal angle; hind-wings tinted with pale sul-

phur ; front-wings, below, with the greater part of the

discoidal cell and basal half of the costal area bright sul-

phur-yellow ; apical half of the costal area and apex

tapering to near the anal angle, tinted with pale sulphur ;

hind-wings as above, but brighter towards the base;

body creamy-white ; anus brownish.

Expanse of wings, 2 inches, 4 lines, to 1 inch, 8 lines.

Hab.—Nicaragua. (De Latre.) Coll. B. M.

Most nearly allied to K. Lyside (Castalia Butl., nec

Fabr.), but at once distinguishable by the marginal band

and differently coloured bases of the wings.

Genus Catuipryas, Boisduval.

Callidryas fornax, n. sp.

@. Allied to C. Larra ; wings above, bright sulphur-

yellow; front-wings with apical and external areas

densely irrorated with dull crimson; a black disco-

cellular spot ; apex and terminations of nervures brown ;

a biangulated discal series of blackish spots bounded

externally on the disc by yellow spots, the largest nearest

to the anal angle ; hind-wings with external area to cell

dull crimson, enclosing one or two yellowish spots to-

wards the costa; apices of nervures blackish; cilia

yellow ; abdominal area pale yellow; body yellow, thorax

clothed with silky grayish hairs; wings below golden

yellow; the apical half orange-tinted ; the whole surface

irregularly patched with red; all the markings (which

are arranged as in (. Philea, 9) are broad and dull red ;

two silver spots at the end of the cell in both wings ; but

those of the front-wings badly defined: body golden-

yellow.

Expanse of wings, 2 inches, 10 lines.

Hab.—Chili. Coll. Kaden in Coll. Druce.

Intermediate between C. Avellaneda and C. Darra, and

one of the most beautiful species in the genus.

New species of Pierine. li

Callidryas Jaresia, 0. sp.

?. Wings above, orange-yellow; margin and disco-

cellular spot black, as in C. Statira ; abdominal area pale

ochreous ; body grayish ; wings below, satiny ochraceous,

becoming pearly towards external margin; markings as

in CO. Statira, but more sharply defined and rosy; the

marginal band of front-wings not confounded with

the discal series of spots, and the disco-cellular spots

better defined; a rosy point at the base of the front-

wings ; body ochreous.

Expanse of wings, 2 inches, 9 lines.

Hab.—Para. Colls. Hewitson, Wallace, and Druce.

I think it just possible that this may be the female of

C. Wallacei, Felder, which, however, I have only seen

from Peru and Bolivia; perhaps it is more likely to be

an extreme form of C. Statira, it, however, differs con-

stantly in its more robust form, and in the other charac-

ters mentioned above.

Genus Betenors, Hiibner.

Belenois Cynis, var., Hewitson. (Pl. VII. fig. 1.)

3. Differs from the typical form in the absence of

the marginal spots of hind-wings, and the restricted

gray area at the base of the wings on the under-surface.

Expanse of wings, 2 inches, 14 lines.

Hab.—Ayerpanas, Malacca. (foberts.) Coll. Roberts

and B. M.

My figure of this variety was taken from an example

lent to me some years ago by Lieutenant Roberts: a

similar example has since been presented by him to the

National Collection ; before we received this specimen,

I supposed two examples of P. Illana, Felder (a local

form of P. Polisma, Hewitson), to be the true P. Cynis,

the insect being so labelled by Mr. White when I first

arranged the collection; I consequently took P. Illana

under the name of P. Cynis, as the type of my new

genus Phrissura, an unfortunate error, considering that

P. Cynis does not possess the anal tuft peculiar to the

species of Phrisswra, and, moreover, agrees in venation,

and in every other character, with the species of the genus

Belenois. '

172 Mr. A. G. Butler on

Genus Hucuior, Hibner.

Euchloé Limonea, n. sp.

3. Allied to H. Scolymus and Genutia ; front-wings

strongly falcate, above yellowish-white, apex sulphur-

yellow; a squamose olivaceous marginal band from the

termination of the first subcostal to the termination of

the third median branch, bounded within by an oblique

elongate-ovate orange band; a pyriform disco-cellular

spot; base blackish; hind-wings sulphur-yellow; base

blackish; ground-colour of wings below as above ; front-

wings, apex sparsely irrorated with olivaceous and brown

scales ; subapical orange band visible through the wing ;

nervures black-tipped ; hirid-wings marbled, almost as m

E. Genutia, with squamose olivaceous spots; body whitish,

abdomen sulphur-yellow.

Expanse of wings, 2 inches.

Hab.—Mexico. Coll. W. W. Saunders.

This very distinct species of the section Midea, is in-

termediate in character between H. Scolymus and L.

Genutia.

LARINOPODA, 0. gen.

Allied to Fuchloé, but with the aspect of Nychitona

(Pontia of recent authors).

Wings pyriform; front-wings with five subcostal

branches, the first emitted at a short distance before the

end of the cell, the second immediately before the end,

the third half-way between the cell and apex; the fourth

and fifth at two-thirds of the distance from the cell to the

apex: upper disco-cellular short, slanting obliquely in-

wards ; lower, three times the length of upper, angulated,

slanting obliquely outwards; median branches emitted

near together; hind-wings with subcostals emitted close

together, so as to reduce the upper disco-cellular to a

point ; lower disco-cellular very oblique, about eight times

the length of the upper ; second and third median branches

emitted at about half the distance from each other that

exists between the second and first ; body short, robust ;

abdomen swollen beneath; legs thick ; antennz short,

slender, feebly clubbed; palpi long, slender, not hairy.

New species of Pierine. 173

Larinopoda lyeenoides,n. sp. (Pl. VII. figs. 2-5.)

9. Wings above, white (like rice-paper), basal costa .

and apex of the front-wings brownish; thorax brownish,

abdomen white, palpi orange.

Wings below, white; front-wings with a rounded

blackish costal spot above the termination of the ceil,

and two or three at the apex; basal costa speckled with

black atoms; hind-wings with a brown subapical spot,

and an indistinct point placed obliquely below it ; a black

spot just below the origin of the first median branch ;

body white, legs and palpi orange-yellow.

Expanse of wings, | inch, 9 lines.

Hab.—West Africa. Coll. «W. W. Saunders.

The above genus, though evidently belonging to the

Pierine, seems, in some respects, intermediate between

the Hronia group of that subfamily and the genus Delo-

neura of Trimen (Lyccenine), and bears out the view

maintained by those Lepidopterists who place these two

subfamilies in juxtaposition; its natural position in the

Pierine is between Nepheronia and Huchloé.

( 175 )

IV. On the dispersal of non-migratory Insects by atmos-

pheric agencies. By Atsurt Miner, F.R.G.S., &c.

[Read 20th February, 1871.]

Ir any of my friends, who may do me the honour of

perusing this paper, should feel tempted to say that it

appears “like a wild flower, where it was least expected,”

I would tell them, that the subject of Insect diffusion has

long had a share of my limited leisure, but that I would

not yet have ventured upon publishing my reflections,

had I not been reminded by the annual address (1870) of

our late president Mr. H. W. Bates, that it is probable

the amount of migration and dissemination by winds,

currents, and other means, is much underrated by some

Entomologists.

It is not within the scope of my theme to consider the

great number of instances which literature records of

migratory insects.* They are mostly prompted to un-

dertake their wanderings by instinct, climatic or meteoro-

logical influences, scarcity of food, and probably other

causes at present unknown to us; and we are all more or

less familiar with the accounts given of the travelling

Lepidoptera, viz.: the larve of several Pieride, of Gastro-

pacha processionea and pinivora, and of Leucanide (army-

worms), the imagines of V. cardui, urtice, of several

Papilionide, Pieride, Uranide, Sphingide, the ‘ Bugong’

moths, &c.; among Coleoptera, several Hydradephaga,

Melolonthide, Lucanide, Coccinellidee, Apion vernale, &c. ;

amongst Hymenoptera, Formicide, and Apide; in the

Neuroptera (in the Linnean sense), Libellulide, Termi-

tide ; in Orthoptera, Blattide, Locustide, Acridiide, &c. ;

in the Diptera, the larve of several Sciaride (‘Heerwurm’);

the imagines of a Bibio, and sundry Syrphide ; whilst

the hosts of Aphide, and a few species belonging to

Notonecta and Aphrophora may be taken as representing

the erratic Hemiptera.

All these Insects are, so to say, travellers by choice or

profession, and very little surprise need greet their ap-

pearance, isolated or en masse, in any part of the globe.

But it is very different with the normally more or less

* A general survey of the subject has been given by C. Cornelius, in his

work “Zug und Wanderthiere aller Thierklassen,” Berlin, 1865.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PartT U. (MAY.)

176 Mr. Albert Miller on the dispersal

stationary or else local insect tribes, which, by habit, food,

or bodily organization, are confined to their native haunts.

Their appearance in out of the way localities deserves to

be fully investigated, and in following their tracks, we

may join Thomas Moore, in saying:

‘* Poor wanderers of a stormy day,

From wave to wave we are driven,

And fancy’s flash and reason’s ray,

Serve but to light the troubled way.”

Various authors have lit up parts of the troubled way

of these insect-waifs, by throwing reason’s ray on the

means of their accidental transportation. Sir Charles

Lyell, Messrs. Kirby, Darwin, Wallace, Wollaston, Bates,

and other naturalists, have shown what human agency,

for instance, trade and navigation,* the carrying by larger

animals and birds, by the ocean and rivers, by floating

trunks of trees, and matted floating islands, pumice stone,f

icebergs, and other drifting objects, and what atmos-

pheric conveyance can, in some cases, accomplish.

But I agree with Mr. Bates, that the amount of dis-

semination by atmospheric means is still much underrated,

and it has therefore appeared desirable to me, to bring

together into a small compass, some of the leading facts

which have forced on my mind the conclusion, that aérial

involuntary locomotion is a most active agency in regu-

lating the distribution of sedentary terrestrial Entoma.

It is well known that Monads, Infusoria, winged and

other seeds, the ashes of volcanic eruptions, the sands of

the deserts of Africa and America, and other substances,

are carried over land and sea by heavy gales. Fishes and

newts have been known to be taken up by waterspouts

or whirlwinds, and deposited far from their original

localities, when the forces which had raised them, were

spent. A. von Humboldt has recorded that small

* Consult Von Frauenfeld’s paper in Verhandl. zool.-bot. G. in Wien,

XVII. pp. 425-464, 1867.

+ I have often found such floating and porous pumice stones on the

Rhine, along the line of rejectamenta left by the spring floods, and I used

to find these stones resorted to by various small Carabide, such as Bem-

bidium, Anchomenus, Loricera, Chlenius, Omophron, and others. I can

therefore confirm Mr. Bates’ supposition (‘Naturalist on the River Ama-

zons,’ 2nd ed. 1864, p. 299), that they often serve as vehicles for insects

and seeds to distant shores. I have also seen such stones left high and dry

by a freshet, the pores filled with river mud, and seeds germinating in it.

A. M.

of non-migratory Insects. 177

songsters and butterflies were met by him several times

in the South Sea, during gales blowing away from

the land, and that, just as involuntarily, insects are often

carried to the height of 15,000 to 18,000 feet above the

plains. This illustrious savant says that the warmed

surface of the earth causes a vertical current of air, by

which light bodies are driven upwards, in confirmation

of which explanation he gives the observation of M.

Boussingault, who, together with his companion, Don

Mariano de Rivero, saw rise from the valley of Caracas,

whitish illuminated bodies mounting up to the height of

5,400 feet to the summit of the Silla, and then sink to-

wards the adjoining coast. This was at midday, and

lasted an hour without interruption. Taken at first for

a swarm of small birds, these bodies were afterwards

recognized as small balls of accumulated blades of the

grass Vilfa tenacissima.* The same author observes

that Captain Fremont met with bees on the peak in the

Rocky Mountains, bearing Fremont’s name, and that,

perhaps, like the butterflies met with by himself im much

higher regions of the Andes, also within the line of per-

petual snow, they were involuntarily carried up by

ascending currents of air.t Mr. Wollaston says: ‘ Un-

willing victims,..... are ever and anon hurried to

comparatively distant lands by the very winds that blow ;

and not only to distant lands, but over altitudes in which

the severity of the cold would quickly annihilate them,

were they (as, perhaps, usually happens) to be deposited

there on their headlong and compulsory course.” { Sir

Charles Lyell observes that, ‘as almost all insects are

winged, they can readily spread themselves wherever

their progress is not opposed by uncongenial climates,

or by seas, mountains, and other physical impediments ;

and these barriers they can sometimes surmount, by

abandoning themselves to violent gales, which may, in a

few hours, carry them to very considerable distances.” §

Our president, Mr. A. R. Wallace, has lately reminded us

that violent gales of wind, for example, will carry bodies

of greater specific gravity than beetles for many miles

* A. von Humboldt, ‘Ansichten der Natur,’ 1860, vol. II. p. 30.

¢ Ibid. Vol. I. p. 42.

t ‘On the variation of species,’ p. 148, 1856.

§ ‘Principles of Geology,’ 9th edit., p. 656.

ike Mr. Albert Miller on the dispersal

through the air; and storms and hurricanes are of such

frequent occurrence, that they must have played a large

part in stocking all uninhabited lands. (Address, &c.,

to the Ent. Soc. Lond. 23rd January, 1871.) A small

longicorn beetle was observed to fly on board a vessel

500 miles off the west coast of Africa.* A moth be-

longing to the genus Andea was captured at sea, more

than 200 miles from the west coast of Africa, and a but-

terfly and several grasshoppers were noticed on board the

ship, all of which are said to have been borne over the

sea by the trade wind.f <A Colymbetes once flew on

board the “ Beagle,” when forty-five miles distant from

the nearest land: how much further it might have flown

with a favouring gale no one can tell.t The beetles in

Madeira, as observed by Mr. Wollaston, lie much con-

cealed until the wind lulls and the sun shines; § a fact

which I have found to hold good with all orders almost

everywhere. I have collected in mountains, but more

particularly in the bleak range of the Swiss Jura, near

the Creux du Vent, where I have noticed that a breeze

has the immediate effect of sending every flying creature

either to the nearest rock, or into the very short herbage

for shelter. This universal habit of mountain insects

seems to denote their appreciation of the dangers which

may arise to them from atmospheric disturbances.

Taking all these facts (selected at random) into con-

sideration, and bearing in mind the towering and soaring, ||

often out of sight, of many butterflies and moths, the cloud-

hke swarms of Formicide, Tipulide, and other Diptera,

dancing round church towers, and over the tops of

* ‘ Zoologist,’ 1864, p. 8920.

+ B.'T. Lowne, in Trans. Ent. Soe. Lond. ser. 3, vol. 2, proc. p. 39.

i Darwin, ‘Origin of Species,’ 3rd ed. 1861, p. 417.

§ Ibid. p. 153. ;

|| Soaring of a moth, Anisoneura hypocyana; read Charles Horne’s note,

‘ Zoologist,’ 1869, pp. 176-7.

q Vide Bond, in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. ser. 3, vol 2, proce. p. 114:—* Mil-

lions of swarming reddish ants round the tower of St. Maurice at Coburg,

mistaken for curls of smoke....Firemen called out, &c.;”? and Wormald, ibid,

stating that he “had seen something very similar at St. Albans, on the

26th of August, when a swarm of small black ants presented the appear-

ance of smoke issuing from the Abbey.”

of non-migratory Insects. 179

trees,* or on cliffs exposed to all the vehemence of sudden

gusts of wind; the circling flight of Anoxia australis over

the highest ashy cone of Vesuvius, observed by Dr. C. A.

Dohrn in 1856; the occurrence of Chlorops lineata en-

closed in a hailstone, as recorded by Mr. F. Walker,t

coupled with Mr. Pascoe’s remark, that though insect

swarms were not common on or very near to the surface

of the earth, there must be great abundance of insect life

in the upper atmosphere, and that the destruction of

insects at a considerable elevation by swifts, must of itself

be enormous,§ I think I have proved that the very

habits of many insects are favourable to their forced

removal by aérial disturbances.

But there is some other more direct kind of evidence

to be related. On the 2nd January, 1868, a storm raged

over Teneriffe, which felled the celebrated Dragon tree

of Orotavo, and uprooted the Cochineal plantations of

the island, carrying many plants clear away. Numerous

living larvee of all sizes belonging to Agosoma scabri-

corne, were scattered far and wide from the broken bole

of an old lime tree at Basle, blown down during a violent

hailstorm on the 8th March, 1868.|| In an article on

Argentine Coleoptera by Ed. Steimheil, printed in the

** Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze naturali, 1869,”

it is stated of Calosoma bonariense, Dej., that this, and

other Carabide, could be collected in numbers in the

* Haliday records of Culex detritus, that it is seen in Ireland ‘in the

evening, in columns about the tops of trees, appearing like smoke at the

distance of a furlong.” (Entom. Mag. vol. I. p. 151, 1833.)

Fairmaire says:—‘‘qu’il a vu & Stockholm, autour de peupliers, au

milieu de la ville, d’immenses quantités d’insectes, probablement des

Diptéres et Névroptéres, qui formaient des véritables nuées ressemblant

a de la fumée, A l’éxtrémité des branches. Au dire de MM. Boheman et

Sundevall, ce fait se reproduit chaque été et avec un développement plus

grand.” Bullet. de la Soc. Ent. de France, 1856, p. lii.

On the 12th and 13th August, 1865, the high tops of most pear trees in

the commune of Roggwyl, cant. Thurgovie, Switzerland, were observed to

be crowned with gyrating small blackish clouds of winged ants, presenting

the appearance of curls of smoke. A west wind arose, and suddenly swept

the swarms away.

+ ‘Stett. Ent. Zeit.’ 1870, p. 423.

t ‘Ent. Weekly Intelligencer,’ Vol. 7, p. 76, 1859.

§ Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1869, proc., p. xxvi.

|| Ibid. 1870, proc., p. xxxviii.

180 Mr. Albert Miiller on the dispersal

middle of November 1865, and at about the same period

in 1866, in the streets and houses of Buenos Ayres, and

that they were wafted there by the Pampéro, the stormy

west wind, which brings bright weather from the neigh-

bouring Pampa, after the rain. It is stated, that this

was a “true rain” of insects, and that the houses,

cellars, terraces, rooms, &c., were swarming with the

creatures. Dr. C. A. Dohrn says, in allusion to this fact,

which was observed by Strobel, that, if the latter were

right in his supposition that the said insect rain in

November is a periodical event, Professor Burmeister

would certainly be in a position either to confirm, or

negatively to answer it.* In connection with this record,

it seems desirable to mention that Professor Lacordaire

says, in his “ Introduction 4 l’Entomologie, p. 494, that

for two consecutive years, while he was at Buenos Ayres,

this town was, every spring, for eight days, visited by

millions of Harpalus cupripennis, which arrived daily in

the dawn of the morning, and had to be swept away

every morning from the outside of the houses, where

they were piled up several feet in height.” + Professor

Westwood has recorded swarms of Harpalus near Dover,

on the 12th August, 1839. {

Monsieur Rouzet states, that on the 21st May 1856,

the exterior Boulevard of the Barriére du Pére Lachaise

at Paris, was covered with multitudes of Rhizophagus

parallelicollis, Gyll., to a height of from five to six milli-

métres, and along the walls they lay a centimetre high,

for a distance of more than a kilometre. A storm came

on in the evening and swept them all away, so that

none were left the next day.— Bulletin de la Soc. Ent. de

France, 1856, p. li.

Captain Fitzroy tells us in his “ Narrative of the Sur-

veying Voyages of H.M. ships ‘ Adventure’ and ‘ Beagle,’

that, “‘ between the La Plata and the Rio Negro, myriads

of white butterflies surrounded the ships in such quanti-

ties that the seamen said, ‘it snows butterflies !’” They

were brought by a gale from the north-west, which in-

creased for a time.

* Stettin. Ent. Z., 1870, p. 428.

+ Quoted by Cornelius, ‘ Wanderthiere,’ p. 230.

{} Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. ser. 1. vol. V., proc., p. 24.

of non-migratory Insects. 181

Caldcleugh relates in his “ Travels in South America,”

that he experienced in 22° north latitude, a violent gale

accompanied by thunder, lightning, and a waterspout,

and that afterwards, on the deck, and in the tackle, a

number of butterflies were found.

Cornelius, in referring to the two preceding facts,

points out, that here we meet with swarms of butterflies

in casual connection with grand natural phenomena, such

as strong gusts of wind and violent tempests, and that it

seems to him very well admissible, that during great

storms, but especially in the course of waterspouts and

tornados, a large number of such insects are swept to-

gether, and carried over land and sea.* The same author

observes, that, in preference, he would assert this for

mixed swarms, consisting of several kinds of insects.

An instance of such an assemblage is related by Van

Bemmelen, f who met with unspeakable numbers of white

butterflies, principally Pieris brassice, one or two species

of Sphex, and Diptera agreeing with Musca vomitoria,

Linn., arriving from the sea in the Downs near Nordwyk

aan Zee, at eleven o’clock, a.m., on the 13th July, 1855.

On reaching the Downs, they lessened the rapidity of

their flight; some settled, others kept on their course.

The flying past was observed for an hour; the direction

was W.N.W. to E.S.E., the wind was W.N.W., and

gentle.

The above are by no means all the observations re-

ferring to the occasional transportation of non-migratory

insects which have been made, but I opine that enough

has been said to prove that, whenever atmospheric dis-

turbances occur suddenly, considerable numbers of more

or less stationary insects are likely to be, or are in reality,

removed to distant quarters. Who has not seen the

clouds fly overhead with astounding rapidity, and what

insect could resist the direction of the current of air thus

indicated, even for hundreds of feet away from the moving

mass?. In mountainous districts particularly, the clouds

as they closely encircle a peak for a time, must often

bring or carry off such castaways.

A local phenomenon connected with the forced dis-

persal of living beings, occurs constantly on the Alps; I

* « Wanderthiere,’ p. 255.

+ Handelingen nederl. Entom. Vereen, 1857, p. 91.

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1871.—rarT u. (MaAy.) O

182 Mr. Albert Miiller on the dispersal

allude to the avalanche. Wherever strong inclines an-

nually receive and discharge large masses of snow, there

the dreaded spectacle may occur. Many thousands of

feet overhead, the fleet step of the chamois, the rising

of a bird, or a stone detached by the action of the frost,

may loosen a small lump of snow, which rolls down and

detaches others, their weight and rapidity of fall increase,

whole fields of snow loosened by the wind called ‘ Féhn”

follow, and down the mass rushes, mile after mile, carry-

ing everything before and with it, snow and ice, rock,

forest, chalet, meadow, man and brute! The body of air

quickly displaced by this moving mass, rushes in front

with the rapidity of lightning: woe betide the living

creature within its reach; hurled along with thousands of

fellow sufferers, it finds itself in a few minutes deposited

miles away from its home; eggs, larve, pupz, all—the

very bush on which they were surprised—the very sod

which had harboured them, have joined the flight, and

for miles down the valley the windows rattle, and the

doors slam with the impetus they have received from the

sudden shock of air.

I mention this Alpine scene, to show the power of the

atmosphere in dealing with organized nature. I feel

certain that a great many so-called faunistic novelties, are

the mere wrecks of hosts of insects distributed by cur-

rents of air; the results of their carrying powers are

often before us, but as it is the wholesome habit of man

with ‘‘the bare back,” to seek shelter when the storm

rages, no doubt they are mostly overlooked. However,

just as the floating belts of Aphid, Syrphide, and Cocci-

nellide around our coasts, as the rows of dead locusts on

the banks of southern waters, as the white “ Uferaas,”

the remains of Hphemeride lining continental rivers, in-

dicate the destructive power of the watery element, so

the atmosphere, too, has its great wreck chart spread

out for those who will read it. It has this in common

with the new charts of the mariner, that, excepting

general outlines, it presents to the eye a white surface,

which becomes gradually dotted over with little blotches,

denoting the spots where living freights have suffered

shipwreck. Wherever a certain altitude presents the

needful conditions, or when winter clothes the land with

snow, our map is spread; and I will now endeavour to

point out some of the wrecks, which human observation

has marked upon it.

of non-migratory Insects. 183

1672. Nov. 20. S.F. Frenzel records a fall of insects, with snow, in

Hungary.—Dissertatio de Insectis, 1673.

1672. D. M. Moller writes a ‘“‘ Meditatio de insectis quibusdam Hun-

garicis prodigiosis anno proxime preterito ex aere una cum nive in agros

delapsis.—(No doubt the same fall as the one above) 1673.

1722. An account is given in this year of ‘* snowed’? worms.—Breslau.

Naturg. wu. Kunstgesch. Vers. 19, p. 166.

1749. De Geer records the occurrence in Sweden, of the larva of Tele-

phorus fuscus on the snow in winter.—Vetensk. Acad. Handl. Vol. 10, p. 76.

1749. T. Hesselius records finding living insect larve on the snow, in

Sweden.—Vetensk. Acad. Handl. Vol. 10, p. 75. (Refers perhaps to the

preceding instance.)

1753. M. C. Hanow records a fall of snow-worms in Germany.—Titius,

Seltenheiten, Vol. 1, p. 456.

1758. Another instance occurs of larve found on the snow, in Germany.

—Stuttgart. Phys. Econ. Anz. Vol. 1, p. 157.

1806. Schramm publishes a note on the snowing of larve in Silesia.

—Verhandl. G. z. B. d. Naturkunde Schlesien’s, p. 217.

1811. J.§. Capieux makes some remarks on the appearance of many

larve which had been seen in sundry places in Saxony on the snow.—

Leipzig Intelligenz Bl., No. 12, p. 97.

1828. G. Fischer yon Waldheim reports on larve of Telephorus fuscus

found alive on the snow.—Bullet. dw Nord., p. 45.

1847. January 30. Snow, together with larve, fell in the Hifel._—

Allgem. deut. Naturhist. Zeit. Vol II. p. 176.

1849. January 24. Count C. Tyzenhaus records a fall of Telephorus

fuscus in Lithuania.—Revue et Magas. Zool. Vol. I. p. 72.

1856. Professor Oswald Heer records the occurrence of larve, to the

number of 300,000, of Telephorus fuscus, on snow in Switzerland.—Vier-

teljahrsschrift d. naturf. G. in Ziirich, Vol. I. p. 85.*

Most of these records refer to Telephorus fuscus, which

passes its metamorphosis underground in the roots of

trees, in large numbers. Such trees being uprooted by

storms, the larvee become exposed, and liable to be carried

away. But it is needless to inquire, in this paper, into the

real value of all these records of the fall of insects with, or

on snow; some are bond fide occurrences, witnessed by

careful observers; others must be taken cum grano salis ;

and a few may be referred to early and wholesale eclo-

sions from the pupa-state. In the latter category must

be placed the often observed occurrence of Cynips aptera

on the snow.

I may insert here, that in 1765, a list was published of

a quantity of insects found after rain,f and that pro-

bably the reason why we do not possess more evidence

of the fall of insects together with fluid water, is to be

* The above chronological list is compiled from Dr. Hagen’s ‘ Biblio-

theca entomologica.’

+ Frank. Samml. Vol. VII. p. 362, 1765.

0 2

184. Mr. Albert Miiller on the dispersal

sought in the circumstance of their being thus far more

likely to escape notice, than if they were deposited on

the unsullied surface of freshly fallen snow. But that

such falls must occur, is shown by the fact of the fly

found in a hail-stone, which I have already alluded to.

So far, I have only stated the evidence afforded by

insects deposited in the plains.

Ascending now the mountains, we ought to expect to

find similar wrecks of insect transports, if the theory

that atmospheric involuntary locomotion is a powerful

agency of dispersal, be worth holding.

And so we do, here are the proofs tabulated :—

PYRENEES.

MALADETTA.

Observed on the snowy dome of the glacier, at a height of about 11,000

feet, great numbers of a Chrysopa, both flying and crawling on the snow.

July.

Glacier of the Vignemale, at a nearly equal height, obtained a fine series

of Ichneumon antennatorius, Grav. They were picked up at intervals of

a few yards, alive but feeble, each one being at the bottom of a small pit

or depression in the snow. With them, in equal abundance, a moth, pro-

bably P. gamma. Also a few Lygeus equestris, noticed by Ramond in his

attempt to scale the Touquerone glacier, leading up to Mont Perdu.

(Rey. T. A. Marshall, Ent. Mo. Mag., Vol. 5, p. 170; Dec. 1868.)

ALPS.

Mont Brane.

14,800 feet (Parisian).

“Last year, one of my friends, Dr. Ordinaire, made an ascent of Mont

Blane. On arriving at the summit, the first object that attracted his

attention, was a Plusia gamma, kicking in the snow.” (Bruand, Catal. des

Lepidopt. du Dépt. du Doubs, 1845, p. 83.) Ad. & Aug. Speyer say in

reference to this observation, “ so much is certain, that only an acci-

dent, and ascending current of air of rare steadiness and intensity, could

have brought the creature into that inhospitable region. (Die geograph.

Verbreit. der Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz.’ 2nd part,

1862, p. 29.)

Monte Moro.

‘ At an elevation of about 8000 feet, in small cylindrical holes in the

snow, in each either a small lump that looked like peat, or more frequently

an insect, invariably either Dipterous or Ichneumonideous.”’ One insect

found lying on the snow was still living, viz., Cryptus tarsoleucus. F. P.

Pascoe, Proe. Ent. Soc. Lond. Vol. 3, April, 1865. Further particulars in

my paper, Zoologist, 1866, p. 273; and discussion of the same in Trans.

Ent. Soe. Lond., 3rd ser., vol. v., proc., p. xix.; and Dr. Imhoff’s note in

the ‘ Zoologist’, 1866, p. 390.

of non-miyratory Insects. 185

Sr. GorHARD.

‘¢ T well remember, at the head of the pass during the month of May, to

have been forcibly struck by the great accumulation of insect-life at the

bottom of some rounded depressions in the snow, which had melted so as

to expose the soil beneath it, thus, forming as it were, black oases amidst

an ocean of unsullied white. They were chiefly Coleoptera.” (T. V. Wol-

laston, Zoologist, 1866, p. 313. and compare this paper for arguments pro

and con. the alpine origin of the insects in question.)

TIMBL.

(Passeier Grund.)

Ascending the heights towards the glacier, between 5900-8000, Apho-

dius discus is met with, “and on my second journey when I intentionally

searched the snow-field, I found it strewn over with them in great

numbers, if not carried there by whirlwinds, as I am inclined to sup-

pose by the many Noctue, Diptera, and a Calopus serraticornis struggling

with death, which were lying about.’ P. V Gredler, ‘ Verhandl. etc.,

des siebenbiirg Vereins fiir Naturwissensch.’ 1856, No. 2.

CARINTHIAN ALPS.

“ F, Low published (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. in Wien, xvii. pp. 751-752) a

note on the species of Insects found on the snow in Carinthia (elevation

2700-3400) by R. Kaiser, in the winters of 1858, 1861, and 1862. The

number of species is small, but included a new Homalota (H. glacia-

lis, Mill.); two species of Nabis occurred, and Achorutes mwrorwm in great

quantities.” (‘ Zool. Record,’ 1867, p. 204.)

Without prejudicing the question, how many or how

few of the observations mentioned in this table, refer to

insects peculiar to the neighbourhood of the snow-fields

and glaciers on which they were found, I think it will be

allowed for each individual instance, that ascending cur-

rents of air, or whirlwinds, such as often happen in

mountain regions, were the main causes of their reach-

ing their inhospitable and, probably, last resting-places.

But the winds which deposited them there, might have

carried them beyond the respective mountains, and

might have allowed them to settle in more comfortable

quarters; and if these premises are granted, then my

object of proving the forced dispersal of non-migratory

Articulata by atmospheric agencies is reached.

Most of the facts collected in this paper refer to the

dissemination of living insects in continental Europe

only, but it stands to reason, that if my conclusions are

correct as regards continents, the modus operandi of

Nature will be often a similar one as regards the popu-

lating of islands. Only, of course, the chances of life for

castaways are in this case much lessened ; not because

their chances on arrival are worse, but because they pro-

bably often find a watery grave before reaching land.

186 =Mr. Albert Miller on non-migratory Insects.

It also seems to me, that the array of facts adduced

here is a justification for the opinion, that instead of

being an accidental and isolated event, the involuntary

dissemination of stationary insects will be eventually

found to be mostly regulated by the periodical disturb-

ances of the atmosphere, aided by their own locomotive

powers in some instances, and in others by the habits of

life which expose them to its constant influence.

As the ploughshare breaks up the green sward of

arable land, and disturbs the closely interwoven roots of

the existing assemblages of plants, so do tornados, whirl-

winds, and storms furrow the surface of our globe in all

directions, unsettling and scattering prosperous commu-

nities of living creatures, and rendering many of them

for a time the helplessly drifting waifs of an ocean

‘ Whose every wave breaks on a living shore.’

( 187 )

V. Notes on some British species of Oxypoda, with de-

scriptions of new species. By Davin Suarp, M.B.

[Read 6th March, 1871.]

In offering some descriptions of new species of Oxypoda

to the Society, I feel that some words of apology are due;

the species of this genus being already in such a state

of confusion, that it will certainly be correctly considered

that an entire revision of the genus is required, rather

than descriptions of isolated species. The difficulty, but

at the same time, the absolute necessity, of inspecting

the actual types of the authors of species in this genus,

prevents me from undertaking the former task. And as

all the efforts to identify the species here described, of

myself and other British Entomologists, have failed, I feel

myself entitled to describe, and so furnish them with

names (perhaps temporary in some cases) .

O. specTaBrLis. This was founded by Mirkel on a colour-

variety of Aleochara ruficornis, Gyll.; as, however, there

was a prior and different Aleochara ruficornis, Grav., Gyl-

lenhal’s name cannot be adopted, and Miirkel’s name

had better be taken for that of the species.

O. umprata, Grav. Much confusion has existed as to

this, the name having been applied by Erichson to a

different species from that recognized by Gyllenhal as

the O. wmbrata of Grav. Kraatz has already cleared this

up, by giving another name (humidula) to the Hrichso-

nian wumbrata. But still another error remains, for

Erichson described the true wmbrata, under the name of

cuniculina, and, moreover, under this name, it appears to

me, that he confounded two species. I give herewith a

description of the one I suppose to be new.

O.rrctTiTa, nov. sp. Elongata, sericeo-pubescens, opaca

fusco-nigra, elytris paulo dilutioribus, antennarum basi,

palpisque obscure testaceis, pedibus testaceis; dense

subtilissimeque punctato, thorace obsolete canaliculato.

Long. 14 lin.

O. cuniculina, Er., ex parte (forte).

Allied to O. umbrata, Grav. (Gyll., Th.), and about

the same size, but as broad in the middle, with the

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—rarrT 1. (MAY.)

188 Dr. Sharp on

thorax narrower, and less transverse, and having an ob-

solete, but always more or less distinct, central longitu-

dinal channel, the hind-body less pointed at the extremity,

and the thorax and elytra not quite so finely punctured.

The antenne are pitchy in colour, with the basal joint

yellowish, and the next pitchy-yellow; they are thickened

towards the apex, the third joint is distinctly shorter

than the second, the fourth joint is smaller than the

others, and about as long as broad, joimts 6-10 are

slightly transverse. The head is blackish, about half as

broad as the elytra; the thorax is about half as broad

again as it is Jong; it is convex transversely, but not

longitudinally, it has an indistinct central longitudinal

channel, and is densely and finely punctured and pubes-

cent (owing to the channel, this pubescence has the

appearance of being combed or parted on each side).

The elytra are rather lighter in colour than the head and

thorax, are about one-third longer than the latter, and

are densely and finely punctured. The hind-body,

though distinctly narrowed to the apex, is not very

pointed, it is throughout very finely and very densely

punctured, the extremity, and sometimes the hind mar-

gins, of the segments, being ferruginous. The legs are

yellow. Distributed throughout England and Scotland,

but rather rare.

The next species is very different from any other I am

acquainted with.

OQ. EDINENSIS, nov. sp. Brevior, nigra, subnitida,

antennarum basi, thorace, elytrisque obscure ferrugineis,

pedibus testaceis ; abdomine apicem versus subangustato,

dense subtiliter punctata, elytris thorace paulo longiori-

bus. Long. 14 ln.

Obs. Statura fere O. lentule, Hr., sed magis nitida, et

colore dilutiore, elytris brevioribus, capiteque angustiore

distincta. .

The antennee are pitchy in colour, sometimes a little

paler at the base, they are but slightly thickened to-

wards the apex, third joint slightly shorter than the second,

fourth a httle smaller than the fifth, 6-10 slightly trans-

verse, eleventh joint scarcely so long as the two preceding

together. The head is pitchy, or pitchy-black, more than

half as broad as the elytra, closely and finely punctured,

rather shining; the palpi are yellowish. The thorax is as

some New Species of Oxypoda. 189

broad as the elytra, rounded at the sides, one-half broader

than long, with a very indistinct central channel, finely

and closely punctured, but rather shinmg. The elytra

are scarcely longer than the thorax, of an obscure brown-

ish colour, rather shining, closely and finely punctured.

The hind-body is but little narrowed towards the apex,

is extremely densely and finely punctured, but not alto-

gether dull. The legs are yellowish.

A series of this species was captured some years ago,

near Edinburgh, by Dr. McNab, and myself. Mr. Crotch

has sent it to some of the continental entomologists, but

it has not been identified.

O. VERECUNDA, nov. sp. Obscure testacea, abdomine

medio nigricante, pedibus testaceis, dense subtilissime

punctata, opaca sat elongata, abdomine apicem versus

angustato. Long. 14 lin.

A rather narrow dull species, of a dusky testaceous

colour, with the middle of the hind-body darker, and the

legs yellow. The antenne are moderately long, not

stout, a little thickened towards the apex, of a dirty

yellowish colour, yellow at the base, basal joints slender,

second considerably longer than the third, 4th, 5th, and

6th differing but little from one another, each a little

broader than the preceding one, 7-10 transverse, eleventh

joint large, about as long as the two preceding together.

Head rather more than half the width of the thorax,

closely and finely punctured, the palpi yellowish. Thorax

rather narrowed to the front, about one-half broader

than long, without channel, closely and very finely punc-

tured, finely but distinctly pubescent, and rendered dull

by this pubescence. Elytra a little longer than the thorax,

very closely and finely punctured and pubescent. Hind-

body narrowed towards the apex, but not extremely so,

ferruginous at the base, blackish in the middle, yellowish

at the extremity, extremely finely and densely punctured,

near the extremity on the upper-side with well-marked

black outstanding sete. Legs yellow, moderately long

and slender.

This insect possesses no particularly striking character,

and seeing the confusion prevailing in the genus, I omit

comparison with other species (as I should thus admit

two elements of uncertainty in place of one into my

190 Dr. Sharp on

reader’s chance of identifying it), but will remark, that

its nearest ally in this country is the O. ewoleta of our

collections.

It is not common, but I have taken it near London,

and in the Fens.

O. nicrina, Wat. It has been attempted by M.

Fauvel to identify this species with the sericea of Heer,

but, according to Kraatz, sericea, Heer, is probably the

umbrata of Grav. At any rate, Mr. Waterhouse has

supplied us with a good name for the species, which we

need not abandon till it is satisfactorily identified with

some prior species.

O. nxicvua. M. Fauvel has also stated, that a British

specimen sent under this name is rather O. investigatorum,

of Kraatz; but Mr. Rye subsequently sent the specimen

so identified to Kraatz, who states that it is not his in-

vestigatorum. It seems to me not improbable that it is

the true O. ewiqua of Er. At any rate, it had better

stand under that name at present.

O. rEconpiTa, Kr. The species, designated as O. lucens,

Muls., in Mr. Waterhouse’s catalogue, has been identi-

fied with O. recondita, Kr., by Mr. Crotch. It agrees,

at any rate, better with the latter description than with

that of Mulsant.

O. Warernouset, Rye, = O. nigrofusca, Wat. This

species also has not yet been reconciled with a continen-

tal one. The name under which Mr. Waterhouse de-

scribed it has been changed, because of a prior species

of the name by Stephens. Stephens was so extremely

careless, as to describe in his ‘Illustrations’ only a few

pages from one another, two insects under the name of

Aleochara nigro-fusca ; the first (Vol. V. p. 129) is quite

worthless, and not an Oxypoda (probably not, at least);

the second (Vol. V. p. 150) might, possibly, be a de-

scription ofa small immature O. longiuscula ; in Stephens’

‘Manual,’ this latter A. nigrofusca has been referred to

the genus Oxypoda, the description being abbreviated,

and rendered worthless, O. longiuscula, moreover, being

described but a few lines further on. I cannot but regret

that Mr. Waterhouse’s name has been changed on account

of such a confusion of rubbish.

some New Species of Oxypoda. 191

O. rrparta, Fair. 1859 (nec Th. 1855). This name

must be changed as above indicated, and I propose for it

the name of O. mutata, and subjoin a diagnosis of it.

O. Murata. Elongata, rufo ferruginea, abdomine medio

nigricante, antennis pedibusque testaceis, dense fortiter,

subrugulose-punctata, abdomine apicem versus paulo

angustato. Long. 1} ln.

This species is distinguished from all our other British

species by its stronger and dense punctuation. Fair-

maire describes the head as black, but I do not find it so

in our British examples.

O. BrAcHypTERA, Steph. Elongata, subparallela, haud

nitida, rufo-ferruginea, abdomine medio late nigricante,

dense, subtiliter punctata, elytris thorace paulo breviori-

bus, fereque angustioribus. Long. | lin.

Aleochara brachyptera, Steph. Ill. Brit, Ent. V. p. 128.

Oxypoda forticornis, Fair. Ann. Fr. 1859, p. 37 (forte).

Of an elongate, narrow, and rather parallel form, but

with the extremity of the abdomen distinctly narrowed.

The antennz and legs are yellowish; the head, thorax,

and elytra of an obscure reddish colour; the hind-body

reddish at the base, and at the extremity, black in the

middle. The antenne are rather long and stout for the

size of the insect, a little thickened towards the apex, the

basal joints being stout; the second jomt much longer

than the third, the third triangular, being much narrowed

at the base, fourth joint shghtly transverse, 5-10 strongly

so, eleventh joint long and stout, quite as long as the two

preceding together. Head rather broad, much narrower

than the thorax. Thorax nearly twice as broad as it is

long, not much rounded at the sides, but a little rounded

and narrowed towards the anterior angles, thickly and

finely punctured with a short pubescence; the elytra are

rather shorter than the thorax, and even a little narrower

than it, closely and finely punctured, but rather more

coarsely than the thorax; hind-body densely and finely

punctured with a close, not altogether fine pubescence ;

the sete of the extremity small and indistinct.

This little species is clearly the Aleochara brachyptera

of Stephens’ description above referred to. It must be very

192 Dr. Sharp on Oxypoda.

close to O. ferruginea, Er., but even if it prove identical,

Stephens’ description and name have the priority. Fair-

maire’s description of O. forticornis, applies so accurately

to it, that I think there is little doubt of its being the

same species, though it is referred to a vastly different

one in Harold’s catalogue.

O. TARDA, nov.sp. Opaca, subparallela, nigra, thorace

elytrisque obscure ferrugineis, antennis, pedibus, abdo-

minisque apice obs¢ure testaceis, dense subtiliter punc-

tata ; elytris thoracis longitudinis. Long. 1} lin.

Closely allied to the preceding species, but larger,

darker in colour, with the antennz scarcely so large, for

the size of the insect; the elytra a little longer, and the

base of the hind-body not paler than the middle: in all

other respects similar. The thorax is variable in colour,

being sometimes obscurely ferruginous, sometimes nearly

black.

All the specimens I have seen of this species have

been captured in the salt marshes near Dumfries.

( 193 )

VI. Observations on Immature Sexuality and Alternate

Generation in Insects. By B. T. Lowne,

M.R.C.S. Eng.

[Read 6th March, 1871.]

Wuitst in Palestine, in 1864, about the 23rd of January,

I was encamped with the Rev. H. B. Tristram and party

at Hnjedi, where I found a large black and yellow species

of Petasia (Orthoptera), both in its larval and imaginal

forms, in abundance, feeding upon the leaves of Calo-

tropis procera. I cannot give the specific name of the

insect, and I believe it has not hitherto been described.

I was surprised to find the larvee of this insect copu-

lating in considerable numbers. Until lately, I knew of

no similar case, but my friend, Dr. J. A. Power, tells me

that Ischnodemus sabuleti is frequently taken in the same

condition, whilst in the so-called pupa-state.

When in Australia, ten years ago, I remember observ-

ing numerous individuals of a large wingless blatta in

the same condition, but this observation has evidently a

totally distinct value, as the Blatta in question is not

known to me ever to produce wings: hence this is only

a similar phenomenon to that observed in the Cimew lec-

tularius, an apterous, or more strictly speaking, a larval

form in a sexually mature condition.

The following facts, also communicated to me by Dr.

J. A. Power, seem to me to unite these phenomena by

transitional forms. Several species of Hemiptera, as, for

instance, Bryocoris pteridis, although sexually mature,

have a very immature or undeveloped appearance ; others,

as all the British species of Nabis, rarely attain their

true imaginal characters in either sex; the female of

Sphyracephalus ambulans, which is, as a rule, apterous, has

been known in one or two instances only, to be furnished

with wings, so that this may considered as a parallel in-

stance; and, lastly, both sexes of Velia are almost always

apterous, although they occasionally produce wings.

I have not included in this list cases in which the

females only are constantly apterous, because this condi-

tion may arise from other causes; but where either one

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—parT u. (May.)

194, Mr. B. T. Lowne on

or both sexes occasionally produce wings, I think we see

forms intermediate between apterous, and winged sexually

mature ones.

Two views may be taken of the significance of these

facts. We may see a transitional condition between a

larva like progenitor and an imaginal descendant, or we

may see a transition from a winged to an apterous per-

fect insect.

My own belief is, that we see a transition from a

winged to an apterous mature form, and this belief is

based on the following facts.

Firstly ; that larvee have been observed copulating, and

that there is a decided tendency in many animals for the

sexual organs to attain maturity before the animal attains

all its adult characters.

Secondly; the rare appearance of wings in many He-

mipterd, especially in the female of Sphyracephalus

ambulans, appears more like reversion to a lost ancestral

form than a tendency to develop a winged one.

Thirdly; because the sexual organs of insects first

appear at a very early period of hfe, and undergo, in

some instances at least, gradual development, until the

insect arrives at maturity, although all the other organs

undergo a very remarkable metamorphosis. Indeed there

is good reason to believe, that the remarkable larval re-

production of Cecicdomyide, depends on the premature

development of the sexual organs in the larva.

On the other hand, the principal objection to this view

that has occurred to my mind is, that the larva of the

Ametabola is usually believed to have existed in a mature

condition before any winged insects had been developed.

Fritz Miiller says, ‘‘It seems to me, that valid reasons

may be brought up in favour of the opinion, that the

most ancient insects approached more nearly to the

existing Orthoptera, and, perhaps, to the wingless Blat-

tide, than to any other existing order.” And although

Gerstiicker and others have shown, very conclusively to

my mind, that the larval forms of the Metabola are not

direct or inherited, but indirect or acquired, I am not

aware that any one has advanced this hypothesis with

regard to the metamorphosis of the Ametabola.

immature sevuality in Insects. 195

I shall now consider, at some length, the facts bearing

upon the above reasons in favour of, and against the views

I have advanced.

First. With regard to the early sexual maturity of

larval forms.

I have already given instances, in the sexual condi-

tion, of the larva of Petasia and Ischnodemus, but one of

the most striking facts of this kind is said to occur

amongst the Hehinodermata: last summer, Mr. Alex.

Agassiz related the instance to which I refer, at a meet-

ing of the Royal Society, at the conclusion of one of Dr.

Carpenter’s ‘‘ Papers on Deep Sea Life.” It was this

remark of Mr. Agassiz that first led me to suspect that

the wingless forms of Hemiptera and Orthoptera might

have arisen from early maturity of the sexual organs.

Mr. Agassiz stated, that the young of a Mexican Hehi-

noderm become sexually mature on the coast of Norway,

to which its larve are transported by the gulf stream.

The two sexually mature forms are apparently very dis-

tinct species, but to anyone who knows the young of the

Mexican form, the Norwegian species is clearly only an

immature condition of it, with fully developed sexual

organs.*

Second. I have cited the rare appearance of wings in

certain Hemiptera, in support of my views. The whole

subject, however, of the correlations of the development

of the sexual and cutaneous organs in insects is remark-

ably complex, but I will endeavour to put before you

some of the more important facts bearing upon it.

It must be admitted, that the development of the

female generative organs, and ova, has a very decided

influence in arresting the development of cutaneous

organs, in comparison with the development of the cor-

responding structures in the male,

It is not a little remarkable that, whilst in Vertebrates

the male seems to require a higher elaboration (if I may

use the term with a kind of indefinite meaning), for its

development, so in insects, the female requires a larger

supply of nourishment, and more favourable conditions.

* See Mr. Darwin’s ‘ Descent of Man,’ vol. ii. p. 215, for numerous other

instances of this nature. Also Mr. Cope, ‘On the origin of genera,’ in

Proc. Acad. Nat. Se. Philadelphia, Oct. 1868; who I find has already

arrived at similar conclusions on the effect of retardation and acceleration

of sexual development, though I cannot follow his deductions. ~

196 Mr. B. T. Lowne on

In support of these statements, I will briefly bring one

or two facts before you. Certain monstrous conditions

in Vertebrates, in which almost all the parts of the body

are doubled, are nearly, if not always, female; whilst in

insects the male is sometimes developed agamically, as

in the bee; and the males are usually smaller than the

females.

Dr. H. Landois* published some very remarkable facts,

which appear to me to have received considerably less

attention than they deserve, owing to the flood of con-

troversy, which originated in certain mistakes made by

the author, and which led him to disbelieve in Partho-

genesis.

Dr. Landois stated, that whole broods of some insects

are often either entirely composed of males or females

only. He affirmed that ill-fed larvee always produced

males, whilst well-fed ones usually produced females. In

this there was clearly some error of observation, as it is

a well-known fact, that the sex may be determined from

an examination of the embryo long before it leaves the

ege.

On the other hand, I am not inclined to look upon Dr.

Landois’ statement as altogether incorrect. The only

insect I have ever bred in large numbers is the blow-fly,

and I found that nearly all the insects bred from the

large well-fed larvee bought at the fishing-tackle shops

were female, whilst ill-fed small larvee have usually pro-

duced males. There may be an error in this observation,

and it has occurred to me that it is possible the breeders

of the maggots may pick out the largest larvee, which

are the females, for their best customers, the large shops:

selling the smaller male larvee to the smaller tradesmen.

Still I cannot find that this is actually the case. From

the large number of pupee that always died, usually more

than half, I am rather inclined to believe that a large

supply of highly nutritive food may act injuriously on

the male larve, especially if they are stimulated to feed

by a higher temperature than the normal one, by causing

an abnormal development, of the fat bodies for instance,

at the expense of the structures destined to form the

pupa. It is easy to understand why too little food would

produce males only, as the females would perish before

arriving at maturity.

* ¢ Zeitschrift ftir wissensch. Zool.,’ Band 17, s. 375.

immature sevuality in Insects. 197

Dr. Landois, who has never, so far as I know, stated

any clear and obvious facts incorrectly, although he

has, unfortunately, drawn some very erroneous infer-

ences, states very clearly that, when he half-starved his

larvee, males only were produced, but that when well-fed,

there were many more females than males. Whatever

the explanation may be, I am strongly inclined to give

credit to the fact.

I mention these facts, because I believe that certain

cutaneous appendages, as the gigantic mandibles and

thoracic horns of many males, are complimental to the

sexual organs. That, in point of fact, they are produced

by the excess of nutriment in the male, which, in the

female, would go to form the generative organs and ova.

It may be urged that this is an improbable explanation,

but it does not appear so to my mind, when we remem-

ber the large amount of the generative product in the

female, compared with that produced by the male.

I think it may be noticed, that all those msects which

exhibit the cutaneous horns and great mandibles in

the male, feed on wood and other vegetable substances,

or decaying animal matters that afford a very limited

amount of nutriment, which necessitates the laying by of

great stores of nutriment by the female for the after-

nourishment of her ova.* The males usually exhibit

two tolerably distinct forms, one with very large mandibles

or horns, and another with these organs scarcely larger

than those of the female in the case of the mandibles,

and very small in the case of thoracic horns, or other

structures absent in the other sex.

It has occurred to me, that the males with the large

cutaneous appendages may be those which are bred and

nourished with the females, whilst those with the smaller

horns may have been nourished by food not sufficiently

nutritive to produce females. Hence the small horned

males would have fewer offspring than the long-horned

males ; and the horns would tend continually to mcrease

in size, although under bad or poor feeding in the larval

condition, they may frequently be considerably reduced.

I very much doubt if the theory of ornament and sexual

selection can be applied to beetles, owing to the very

* These are chiefly developed from the great fat bodies of the female.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—partT nm. (May.) P

198 Mr. B. T. Lowne on

low development of their nervous system, although I

should unhesitatingly apply it to the higher Hymenop-

tera and Diptera. I see, however, that Mr. Darwin has

in his last work * applied the principle to account for the

production of these horns.

This long digression leads me to the wings of insects,

which are really quite analogous to the cutaneous knobs

and horns, so far as their relation to the nourishment

of the body is concerned. The absence of wings in

the female is well known to be excessively frequent,

and there is no more remarkable instance, showing their

relation to the female sexual organs, than the phenomena

observed in Aphis.

The agamic Aphides, which have excessively imperfect

female sexual organs, without either sperm sacs or colla-

teral t (shell-secreting?) glands, frequently have wings,

whilst these never occur in those sexually perfect.

From all the above facts, I think it probable, that the

apterous condition of female insects is an acquired one,

dependent on the amount of nourishment received by the

larva. I also think it highly improbable that the wings

could have been developed by natural selection in one sex

alone, without having been inherited by the other sex,

in some few insects. And I think it more probable, that

altered conditions of larval life, have gradually led to

suppression of the wings in one sex, and that the winged

forms are reversions to an anterior type.

Third. The early appearance of the sexual organs,

their peculiar mode of development, and their occasional

premature development, may now be considered.

* «Descent of Man.’

+ Closely related to this question, is the wider one of coloration in

insects, and, as Mr. Darwin has suggested to me, the greater variability of

the males than of the females. I have already noticed elsewhere, that

the oxidization of the fat bodies of the larva of the blow-fly, produces the

pigment with which the integument is coloured. The fat bodies also

produce the material from which the sexual elements, as well as most of

the tissues are nourished, hence the male element being much less than

the female, more material remains for the development of colour and of

the other organs. As the best fed forms are usually more variable, and

as the amount of pigment is closely correlated with the conditions of the

fat bodies of the larva, I think it probable that both coloration and vari-

ability may be directly influenced by sex, in the manner above indicated.

t I believe these glands in the fly, secrete the very hard, opaque egg-

shell which surrounds the eggs when they are laid.

immature sexuality in Insects. 199

The facts I related at the commencement of this paper,

referred exclusively to the Ametabola. I have not ob-

served that the larve of the Metabola ever become truly

sexually mature, but I think I shall be able to show that

it is highly probable the phenomenon of viviparous ge-

neration in the gall-gnats, arises from the early maturation

of the ovaries.

It has been already noticed that the sex of the Meta-

bola may be discovered by an examination of the sexual

organs of the embryo some time before birth. I have

only observed the development of these organs in the

blow-fly, and in this insect they are the only larval organs

that are continuously developed, and which persist in the

adult fly.

There are only three structures in the larva, which do

not undergo disintegration during the development of the

pupa. These are the imaginal discs, the nervous system,

and the sexual organs. The imaginal discs do not persist

in the perfect fly; they unite and form a pupa-skin, en-

tirely homologous to the pupa-skin of a moth or butterfly ;

the dried larval skin becoming converted into a kind of

cocoon. The nervous system undergoes rapid redeve-

lopment, new structures being formed to subserve new

functions; the sexual organs, alone, undergo ordinary

development. *

I think we see the effect of the accelerated development

of ovaries, in the viviparous agamic generation of Ceci-

domyian larve. Dr. Leuckart’sf observations leave no

doubt, in my mind, that the germ stocks of the Cecido-

myian larva are actually modified ovaries, and that the

development of the new larva, within the body of the

mother, is the result of the non-development of the

accessory sexual organs, the oviduct, vagina, &c. The

agamic nature of the process is no objection to this

theory, as we know that parthogenesis is by no means

uncommon amongst perfect insects, even when they are

ready to produce young in the ordinary way.

I cannot refrain from quoting Leuckart’s own expres-

sion on this subject :—‘‘ The asexual propagation of the

* For further details, see my work on the ‘Anatomy of the Fly.’

+ Ann. Nat. History, 1866.

p 2

200 Mr. B. T. Lowne on

Cecidomyide unmistakeably approaches the phenomenon

in Aphides ; the only difference is, that the germ cham-

ber of the Cecidomyian larva becomes detached, and

moves about in the cavity of the mother; whilst in

Aphides, the germ chambers remain permanently attached

by an apparatus, which in form and arrangement, repro-

duces the conditions of the ordinary female organs.”

In the agamic form of Aphides, we observe the same

tendency to the non-development of the accessory sexual

organs, in the absence of the spermathecz and collaterial

glands.

Lastly. With regard to the objection that the winged

forms of insects are probably derived from the apterous

or larval forms, [ am far from being sure that such is

really the case.

With respect to the Metabola, I think Gerstiicker, and

others, have clearly shown that the larva is an acquired

and not an original form.

If further evidence be needed on this point, I think it

is afforded by the relation borne by the larva of the

Diptera to the embryo and perfect insect. As this rela-

tion is highly remarkable, and as it is directly concerned

in the conclusions I have arrived at on the relation of

the larva of the Metabola and Ametabola, I will say a few

words on the subject.

The embryo of the blow-fly, twelve hours after impreg-

nation, bears a closer resemblance to the pupa, than it

does at any subsequent period of larval life. During the

remaining twelve hours of embryonic life, a very remark-

able change takes place; all those parts of the embryo

which correspond with the head of the perfect fly, be-

come converted into the imaginal discs of Weismann ;

and do not again make their appearance externally until

the pupa-state is assumed. This is quite analogous to

the so-called hyper-metamorphosis of some Coleoptera:

and especially reminds one of the manner of development

in some Crustacea, where the embryo is surrounded,

during development, by a kind of larval skin.

The embryos of Ligia and other Isopods, with their

larva-like skin, afford, to my mind, a clue to the origin of

the metamorphosis of the Insecta. Suppose the embryos

immature sexuality in Insects. 201

of these Crustacea to be born invested in their maggot-

like integument, and to pass the first half of their exist-

ence in this condition, and we should have a condition

very like that observed in the metamorphosis of the

Metabola.

With regard to the primitive ancestral forms of the

Insecta we know nothing; but I think there can be

little doubt that they were nearly allied to the existing

Orthoptera. Nevertheless, I think it quite probable,

that the larva may have undergone even greater modifi-

cations than the imaginal forms, owing to the greater

variability of the conditions to which larvz are sub-

jected.

I believe the great modification of the Insecta from

their original type may, probably, have originated from

modifications of the larva and imago re-acting on each

other. The larva of one Ametabol form, Aphis, is known

to reproduce agamically; a condition which I am not

aware has ever been observed in a direct larva, but which

occurs in acquired larval forms.

I have drawn up a table, which gives the views I have

arrived at, concerning the relation of the various larval

forms in the Annulosa and Annuloida. (Vide p. 202.)

The five spaces, one under the other, are intended to

represent consecutive conditions. The forms in the

lower lines in each column are supposed to have been

produced by successive modifications from those above

them in the same column. Thus the original larval and

perfect forms of insects and trematoids are supposed to

be unknown, and the pupa form is supposed to have

been acquired before the present larval form.

In conclusion, I may say that I only look upon the

hypothesis which has made the frame-work of my present

paper, as highly probable. When it first occurred to me,

I mentioned my ideas to Mr. Darwin ; his kind encourage-

ment, and the wish he expressed that I should publish

my views were the main causes of my elaborating it

to a greater extent. I then found it led me deeply into

a most difficult labyrinth, which I have done my best to

trace. I donoteven think, myself, that I have established

my main hypothesis, but I trust I have brought together

the seed which may, ultimately, produce good fruit.

202 Mr. B. T. Lowne on immature sexuality in Insects.

Norr.—I would suggest, that some of the ideas I have thrown out con—

cerning the horns of many Lamellicorns, might be easily worked out by

some Entomologist living in the country, by rearing the insects, and

watching the results with different kinds of food. In London, with much

other work, I could not possibly undertake the care of large numbers of

living insects.

CRUSTACEA. INSECTA. SCOLECIDA.

AMETABOLA | METABOLA |TREMATOIDA

Inherited, Never producing young

or direct larve like Cecidomyide

larva. Unknown ancestral Joa, . | & Cercaria. Originally

perhaps represented by embryonic sexually mature like Naw-

states, and hyper-metamor- plius, Zoea, &c.

phosis.

rae } Sexually mature.

Imago.* | Imago.* Adult Sexually mature, some-

form* | times reproducing agam-

(Fluke). | ically, like Aphis, and

many other insects.

Acquired | Acquired | Acquired | Exhibiting a tendency

larval form.|pupal form.|pupal form | to sexual maturity. The

(Cercaria | wingless condition of

pwpa). some moths may be look-

ed upon as an acquired

form approximating the

pupa state.

Acquired | Acquired Sometimes reproducing

larval form.|larval form | larve, which ultimately

(Cercaria).| produce the adult form,

passing through the pupa

state, like Cercaria, Ceci-

domyide.

* Highly modified from forms parallel with the adult Crustacea.

( 203 )

VII. On Additions to the Atlantic Coleoptera. By T.

Vernon Wottaston, M.A., F.L.S.

In the following Paper I propose to notice such addi-

tions to the ‘Coleoptera Atlantidum’ as have been

brought to light (since the publication of that volume

in 1865) up to the present date, 7. 6., to the close of 1870;

and I would also take advantage of the opportunity thus

afforded, to give such corrections in the general nomen-

clature as may seem desirable, as well as to add occa-

sional items of information (lately gleaned) when appear-

ing of sufficient interest to be worth placing upon record.

A few remarks, indeed, of that particular kind, together

with the diagnosis of fowr actual novelties to the cata-

logue, formed the subject-matter of a short Appendix to

my ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ in 1867; and these, there-

fore, I must, however briefly, recapitulate, in order that

the present memoir may include every correction and

addition which it is necessary to take account of (so far,

at least, as I am aware) since the ‘Coleoptera Altanti-

dum’ made its appearance.

The number of additions to the combined fauna of the

three archipelagos (namely, the Madeiras, Salvages, and

Canaries,) which I am enabled to record in this Paper is

exactly thirty-three; but as two supposed species have

been expunged from the Madeirian list, * the 1449 species

which were cited in the ‘Coleoptera Altantidum,’ will

be increased to 1480. The thirty-three accessions to

the general catalogue are as follows :—

Madeiras. Canaries.

Stenolophus exiguus, Dej.

Trechus debilis, W. :

Scutopterus imbricatus, W.

Eunectes helvolus, Kl.

Ochthebius algicola, W.

Philhydrus maritimus, Th.

Acrotrichis brevicornis, Mots. .

ovatula, Mots.

Tarphius lutulentus, W.

Meligethes Ryei, W. A

Lemophleus suffusus, W. .

M Mh Md

* The two species which have been suppressed in the Madeirian list

are Trechus quadricollis and Tarphius Wolff.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—rart u. (MAY.)

204 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Madeiras. Canaries.

Cryptophagus pilosus, Gyll. x

Corticaria ciliata, Mots. x

trausversalis, Gyll. Xx

Latridius nodifer, Westw. 5 xX

Watsoni, W.- : : A x

Hoplia Peronii, Blanch. aaa ».¢

Trichius fortunatarum, Blanch. : 0 3 x

Anobium nitidulum, W.

Caulotrupis pyricollis, W.

Phytonomus variabilis, Hbst.

Atlantis luripotens, W.

Scymnus epistemoides, W. °

Cephennium mycetwoides, W.

australe, W.

Pselaphus minyops, W.

Falagria longipes, W. ‘

Homalota Sharpiana, W. .

Placusa infima, Hrich. 0

Aleochara clavicornis, Redt.

Oligota ruficornis, Sharp .

Lithocharis ripicola, Kraatz

Homalium concinnum, Mshm. .

MH HMMM HMMM iM HMM XK XH

The sixteen which are italicized I have treated as new

to science, though at least one of them (if not more),

namely the Latridius Watson, is in all probability a mere

accidental importation (through the medium of com-

merce) from some other country. ‘Two, however, out of

the thirty-three, namely Phytonomus variabilis and At-

lantis lauripotens, are simply reinstated, having originally

been admitted by myself as distinct species, but after-

wards suppressed.

According to the most recent calculations (as now

ascertained), the 1480 species which have hitherto been

brought to hght in these particular Atlantic archipelagos,

are distributed thus :—

Madeirag......ccove. 694

DLV PES ccicessietisise se 27

CAMATIeSssccraccetee 1013

As regards the ascertained faunas of the separate

islands themselves, the following Table will show to what

+ The numbers formerly recorded, were—for the Madeiras, 664; the

Salvages, 24; the Canaries, 1008.

Atlantic Coleoptera.

205

extent they have been increased since the ‘ Coleoptera

Atlantidum’ made its appearance (in 1865).

Madeira proper

Porto Santo

3 Desertas

2 Salvages

Lanzarote .

Fuerteventura

Grand Canary . 5 5

Teneriffe .

Gomera

Palma

Hierro

Old No.

598

160

24.

277

261

341

578

396

258

224

Additions.

82-2* .

Bee Pe DP w LD

New No.

628

163

279

263

342

582

397

259

225

Besides, however, the thirty-three actual additions to

the general catalogue, recorded above, there are ten

species which were well known in the Atlantic list, but

which have recently been detected on islands different

from those which were cited as their habitats in the

These ten local accessions

islands only) be

‘Coleoptera Atlantidum.’

may (as regard their newly-ascertained

thus tabulated :—

——

Ochthebius subpictus, W..........

Philhydrus politus, Kiist. ........

Acrotrichis nigricornis, Mots. ....

PA UALTIS) HUG ONUS eV alesssecoccece <5:

Pecteropus rostratus, W..........+.

Dasytes illustris, W. ........sesce0es

Phytonomus murinus, F. .........

Coccinella mutabilis, Scr. .........

ee IDS coconbeces

Phleopora reptans, Grav. .........

Poi rt t pt V ppd | pep

| -aTeg

| -zwery

(Popo bdr rt

Dele ie Th ty [et

| ‘aeg “9

te WP

oth thle

| ‘mea

| ‘orLOTET

leas paalpelieel

ete Wfesfak yt

It only remains now to remark, as indeed will be ga-

thered from the present paper, that (for the various rea-

* Vide foot-note on p. 1.

206 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

sons given in situ) the titles of certain species have to be

altered. And, as a help therefore to the eye, I may

briefly add, that the changes in nomenclature which have

become necessary are the following :—

Calathus adyena, W. , 3 F = Calathus canariensis, Ha.

Bembidium concolor, Br. . : = Bembidium fortunatum, W.

Philhydrus melanocephalus, W. rae Oliv.)= Philhydrus politus, Kist.

Sacium pusillum, W. (nec Gyll.) . 4 = Sacium madere, Kr.

Arthrolips obscurus, W. (nec Sahlb.) . = Arthrolips piceus, Com.

Acrotrichis Montandonii, W. (nec Allib.) = Acrotrichis nigricornis, Mots.

Guerinii, W. (nec Allib.) . = —— obscena, W.

Ptenidium levigatum, W. (nec Gillm.) = Ptenidium Bruckii, Matth.

—-—— apicale, W. (nec Gillm.) . = atomaroides, Mots.

Ptinella Proteus, Matth. . - 5 = Ptinella testacea, Heer.

Meligethes tristis, W. (nee St.) . = Meligethes seniculus, Hr.

Silvanus unidentatus, W. (nec Oliv.) = Silvanus bidentatus, F.

Corticaria tenella, W. C a : = Corticaria delicatula, W.

Saprinus nitidulus, F. A : 0 = Saprinus semistriatus, Herbst.

Oxyomus Heinekeni, W. . : : = Atenius stercorator, F.

brevicollis, W. . ° = Atenius brevicollis, W.

Acmeceodera ornata, W. . : ; = Acmeceodera elegans, Har.

Anobium striatum, Oliv. . : : = Anobium domesticum, Foure.

Hylastes trifolii, Mull. . ; : = Hylastes obscurus, Mshm.

Rhyncolus erassirostris, W. . : = Rhyncolus pinipotens, W.

Nanophyes longulus, W. . : : = Nanophyes Chevrieri, Gyll.

Hypera lunata, W. . ; . - = Phytonomus dauci, Oliv.

irrorata, W. .

irroratus, W.

murina, fF... ° 0 9 = —— murinus, F.

Scoliocerus madere, W. . . : = Cathormiocerus madera, W.

curvipes,W. . 0 : = ——— curvipes, W.

Bruchus subellipticus, W. c 0 = Bruchus irresectus, Fhs.

Helops congener, W. : ° C = Helops conformis, Gemm.

Scydmeenus castaneus, W. . . = Scydmenus castanicolor,Har.

Phlceopora corticina, W. . - , = Phleopora reptans, Grav.

Homolota obliquepunctata, W. 5 = Homalota pavens, Er.

Oligota inflata, W. (nec Mann.) ; = Oligota parva, Kr.

Heterothops dissimilis, Grav.

Heterothops minutus, W. . : :

Atlantic Coleoptera. 207

Ocypus curtipennis, W. . r “ = Ocypus canariensis Har.

punctatissimus, W. 4 5 = fortunatarum, VW.

Philonthus seybalarius, Nordm. “ = Philonthus longicornis,

Steph.

marcidus,W. . z ; = concinnus, Grav.

proximus, W. . 3 A = ventralis, Grav.

_ punctipennis, W. 4 : = turbidus, Lr.

Leptacinus linearis, Grav. . c : = Leptacinus pusillus, Steph.

Scopeeus trossulus, W. : “ A = Scopus sericans, Muls. et

Rey.

Lithocharis fuscula, W. (nec Mann.) = Lithocharis apicalis, Kr.

tricolor, Mshm. : - = — — ruficollis, Kr.

Sunius angustatus, Payk. . ; : = Sunius gracilis, Payk.

Stenus fulvescens, W. 4 ; : = Stenus Wollastoni, Ha.

Bledius januvianus, W. . : . = Bledius vitulus, Er.

Trogophleeus exilis, W. . c ° = Trogophleus pusillus, Grav.

Since the appearance of the ‘ Coleoptera Atlantidum,’

a very important accession to our knowledge has been

made, through the publication, by Mr. G. R. Crotch, of

a list of the Coleoptera which were obtained by Mr.

Godman at the Azores; and this catalogue, although far

from extensive, is at any rate sufficient for a rough esti-

mate of the general character of the beetle population of

that hitherto uninvestigated archipelago,—and sufficient,

too, I think, to affiliate the latter with the more southern

Groups. Indeed, the existence of such types as Tarphius,

Laparocerus, and Hegeter, even apart from the many

other points of conspicuous contact which it is next to

impossible to account for on any theory of accidental

dissemination, are topographically so significant, that

scarcely any additional evidence could be necessary in

order to stamp the fauna as unmistakably “ Atlantic.”

Yet, although superfluous to allude to them, species like

Calosoma azoricum (which, while absent from Madeira,

re-appears on the Canaries and Cape Verdes), the Phlao-

phagus tenax (so characteristic of the laurel regions of

Madeira), the Opatrum hispidum (which permeates nearly

208 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

every portion of the three more southern archipelagos) ,

and the Homalium clavicorne (which swarms in the rotten

Euphorbia-stems of the Madeiran Group) are, in a geo-

graphical point of view, hardly less important. The

entire number of species obtained by Mr. Godman was

212; and of these Mr. Crotch remarks that 175 are

common to Europe, 140 to Madeira, and 116 to the

Canaries.” The “ 140,” however, may be increased at

any rate to 144; for during our late sojourn at Madeira

we met with the following species which are recorded by

Mr. Crotch, but which had not until then been observed

in any of the islands which constitute the more southern

clusters :—viz., Stenolophus exiquus, Dej.; Latridius no-

difer, Westw.; Lithocharis ripicola, Kr.; and L. apicalis,

ies

Although it is not my intention in this memoir to

discuss the questio vewata of geographical distribution,

T nevertheless can scarcely omit a brief notice of two very

remarkable papers on some of the complex problems

which arise out of that particular subject—both of which

have made their appearance within the last few months,

and which alike enter largely into the supposed ‘‘ origin”

of the fauna of the Atlantic islands. The publications to

which I allude are (1) by Mr. A. Murray, “‘ On the Geo-

graphical Relations of the chief Coleopterous Faun,”

which appeared in the Linnean Society’s Journal in

October 1870; and (2) the extremely interesting Presi-

dential Address of Mr. Wallace, read before the Entomo-

logical Society of London in January last. Although

with numerous and unmistakable points m common,

the authors referred-to account for the colonization of

these various sub-African archipelagos by methods which

we cannot but regard as not merely dissimilar but even

antagonistic,—Mr. Murray contending that a land-pas-

sage (both inter se and with south-western Europe) is

absolutely indispensable, and that accidental dispersion

(as a general principle) between countries widely se-

parated from each other by an oceanic barrier “is in its

very nature exceptional, and one which cannot be expected

to make its impress on a whole fawna;” whilst Mr.

Wallace, on the other hand, affirms his belief that ‘‘ The

Azores, and in a less degree Madeira, appear to teach

us this important lesson in the laws of distribution of

birds and insects,” namely, that the fauna has been de-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 209

termined ‘ almost wholly by such exceptional causes as

storms and hurricanes, which still continue to bring

immigrants from the nearest lands.”

Without recapitulating the various arguments and evi-

dence for these two opposite modes of colonization, I feel

bound to add that my own views (as elsewhere, and

oftentimes, expressed) are more in accordance with those

propounded by Mr. Murray than with the theory of

exceptional, atmospheric dissemination which is so ably

advocated by Mr. Wallace. That storms and hurricanes

may have played a decided part, at rare intervals, in the

accidental transportation of living organisms into many

a remote island I would not for an instant wish to dis-

pute; but, nevertheless, after much consideration in situ,

and with no other desire (through many years) than to

arrive simply at the truth, 1 cannot convince myself that

any such abnormal methods of dispersion have done much

towards bringing about the phenomena in the Atlantic

archipelagos which we now witness, and which appear

to me to be dependant rather upon causes which geologi-

cally perhaps might (whether correctly so or not) be de-

fined as “ exceptional,” and of which an ‘ overwhelming

catastrophe,” involving its legitimate results, whether

from upheaval or depression, may be selected as an intel-

ligible example.

Judging simply from the Coleopterous statistics, from

the exact phenomena which present themselves on the

various portions of these scattered archipelagos, and from

the unmistakable manner in which the most characteristic

forms permeate the entire province (in nearly every in-

stance increasing steadily, both as regards species and

individual numbers, up to some central nucleus, and then

gradually diminishing as we proceed towards the south),

I feel more and more convinced that nothing but a land

of passage between at any rate the consecutive Groups,

destined to be broken up at some later period by a gigan-

tic convulsion, will satisfy the requirements of the Atlantic

problem, and harmonize its otherwise discordant parts.

Yet, although I can see (or, rather, think that I can see)

a nearly equal necessity for a north-easterly extension of

that guondam tract, I should imagine (from the much

greater preponderance of significant European types in

210 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

the more central archipelago) that it was the Canaries,

and not Madeira, from which the Mediterranean branch

took its rise. And if this be the case, it appears to me

that a north-westerly prolongation, or fork, from Teneriffe

(vic the Salvages) to Madeira, and thence continued to

the Azores, would give all that we require (in conjunc-

tion with its partial subsequent disruption) to render the

phenomena, as now met with, intelligible.

If we accept some such explanation as this, the acci-

dental methods of conveyance across wide oceanic barriers

(whether on the water or through the air) , whilst credited

with an appreciable amount of possible results, would not

be required ; for in that case the modes of progression,

even amongst species which are by nature phlegmatic and

stationary, become comparatively simple, being over a

continuous land. Yet I cannot but think, where an un-

broken tract has to be taken into account, that we can

ill-afford to dispense with the agency of even the ordi-

nary winds (which in this Atlantic region blow nearly

uninterruptedly from the north-east) in promoting the

gradual migration of the insect inhabitants ; for it must

be remembered that a considerable number of the latter,

however sedentary in their modes of life, and disinclined

(ike the Tarphii) to wander from a single spot, undergo

their transformations within the pithy stems of plants,

and these latter when accidentally broken off, or rent by

storms, would be conveyed at all events slight distances

even by the common breezes, and would thus transport

their inmates, whilst in the larva state, to places near at

hand which the imago would never have colonized. I

lay unusual stress upon this fact, because if the winds are

to have any acknowledged influence in conveying living

organisms across a broad expanse of sea, it 1s clear that

they must (as rightly contended by Mr. Wallace) be of

an altogether exceptional kind,—indeed, emphatically,

*“storms and hurricanes,” phenomena which are not only

somewhat rare in these particular latitudes, but which,

when they arise, blow almost invariably from the south

(thus implying a migration in an opposite direction from

that which the:facts, as now observed, most plainly indi-

cate); and moreover the sluggish, apterous types, which

are the ones so largely represented in these Atlantic islands,

possess (on the average) bodies which are comparatively

unwieldy, and of all others the least suitable for atmos-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 211

pheric propulsion; whereas over an unbroken region

positive hurricanes would not be necessary for our pur-

pose —the general tendency of the insect fauna (includ-

ing the wingless tribes) being manifestly to follow the

course of the most prevalent winds.* And that the

winds in even remote times have blown from the same

quarter as they do now is proved to a demonstration by

the fact, that nearly every extinct crater which I have

hitherto inspected throughout the three archipelagos

(and in the Canarian Group there are scores of them) are

more or less broken into, or open, on the north-eastern

side ; thus evidently showing in which direction it was

that the breeze was most persistent.

Into the geological difficulties of the problem I do

not profess to enter ; they may, or may not, be insuper-

able. But any experienced observer, who has examined

critically the various phenomena in situ, could scarcely

fail, I think, to arrive at the conclusion that at all

events the several islands themselves which compose

each of the individual groups, and many of which are now

separated from each other by wide oceanic channels of

twenty, thirty, and even forty miles in breadth, were

once united so as to form a comparatively extensive

land ; for if there is one thing more unmistakable than

another, throughout every portion of these sub-African

Groups, it may be expressed in a single word—depaupera-

tion. ‘Taking this therefore as sufficiently proved, it

seems to follow inevitably that (despite the uniformita-

rian opinions of the day) ‘‘ catastrophes,” properly so

called, must have had a significant place in the geologi-

cal record; and if this be true, who shall venture to limit

their magnitude ?

My own opinion is (as indeed was sufficiently expressed

in the Preliminary Remarks both of the ‘ Coleoptera

* TI say “the insect fauna,’ because if a certain proportion are

compelled to migrate (however gradually) in the manner in which I

have suggested, others which (like the hunting races) prey upon them

would of their own accord inevitably follow: and so, in the course of

time, the general tendency would be in a uniform direction,—even whilst

occasional storms and tornados, at rare intervals, might pueceed in con-

veying elsewhere a few of the characteristic types.

212 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Atlantidum’ and the ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’) that the

whole of these island clusters are but the scattered re-

mains of a once (for the most part) continuous land—

which, whatever were its northern bounds, had an un-

doubted north-easterly extension into what is usually

termed the “ Mediterranean province ;” and it certainly

appears to me that the particular region which is now

represented by the Canarian archipelago received the

first, and most complete, influx of Mediterranean types.

Apart from every other motive stimulus, the ordinary

breezes, which seem to have swept well-nigh uninterrupt-

edly in the same direction formerly as now, would tend

to keep up a slow, yet steady, migration towards the

south-west, along that qguondam tract; while occasional

tornados from the east and south, such as are still ex-

perienced, might (on the principle suggested by Mr.

Wallace) account for a slight sub-African element in the

fauna, and likewise transmit afew genuine Atlantic types,

as a repayment, to the north. Once fairly colonized, the

gigantic subsidencies which could alone convert the major

part of this vast continent into an ocean-bottom, may

well be supposed to have accomplished what is further

required,—the isolation of similar species upon areas

which were respectively larger and smaller, and the

greater or less depauperation of the areas themselves,

suggesting innumerable methods for rapidly inaugurating

distinctly modified races, and reducing the phenomena

to what we now witness.

Although I cannot here enter into the minuter details

of insect-dissemination, I will just call attention to the

fact that there is a certain small assemblage of anomalous

beetles attendant upon ants, which would seem, as Mr.

Wallace has remarked, to have some ewceptional methods

of dispersion ; for many of them, which possess neither

wings nor eyes, and are partially even subterraneous in

their habits, appear to have acquired a wider geographical

range than is the case with numerous forms whose capa-

bility for locomotion is developed to the full. We must

remember, however, that the ants (which tend them with

the greatest care) are a restless and erratic tribe, and would

themselves carry their mysterious guests into every fresh

area which they might succeed in occupying. Moreover,

in the Atlantic archipelagos, I believe that another, and

more irregular, principle may unexpectedly have been

Atlantic Coleoptera. 213

at work, within a comparatively recent date, to dissemi-

nate accidentally the myrmecophilous tribes,—I mean

that of indirect human agency. Thus, to take an example,

it was to me always an enigma how the anomalous Cossy-

phodes Wollastoni, which is both apterous and nearly

blind, could by any possibility have acquired the range

which I have myself ascertained it to possess,—namely,

from Madeira to the extreme south of the Cape Verdes ;

for (in addition to Madeira proper, where it is far from

uncommon around Funchal) I have captured it, always

in company with the Weophthora pusilla, in Teneritte

and Gomera at the Canaries, and in 8S. Iago and Brava

of the Cape Verde group. In Brava it is indeed some-

what abundant; and the Gcophthora swarms to such an

extent on that remote little island, as to have become a

downright pest,—the shingly beds of some of the half-

dried streams (as, for instance, that of the Ribeira do

Sorno) being literally, as it were, alive with it. Now we

ascertained, when in Brava, that since the period of its

occupation, numerous Madeiran families had emigrated

thither, and had taken along with them the same taste

for floriculture which is so striking a feature in the mors

northern Group ; and it was easy to recognize around the

Quintas of the Povoacao a large number of ornamental

plants which had, without doubt, been imported, from

time to time, from the gardens of Funchal. Now every

consignment, of even a few plants or shrubs, would pro-

bably be accompanied by the universal Madeiran ant, for

garden-soil can hardly be collected, in the vicinity of

Funchal, which is altogether free from it; and, along

with the Mcophthora, we may be pretty sure that an

occasional Cossyphodes must have found its compulsory

way to Brava. Assuming, then, that the physical condi-

tions were suitable for their development, both one and

the other of the above-mentioned species would soon

multiply, and more or less over-run the whole island.

IT have thought it worth while to cite the above ex-

ample because I believe that the transmission of roots, in

boxes, from more northern latitudes, has been a most

significant means of introducing species (perhaps hun-

dreds of them) into most of the inhabited portions of

these particular oceanic Groups ; and that the ants’-nest

forms should, par eacellence, be amongst those which have

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PaRT I. (MAY.) Q

214 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

been conveyed, it will immediately strike every naturalist

as probable. And since it is further certain that ants

are emphatically a wandering race, and would themselves

rapidly disseminate their small Coleopterous attendants,

we have everything that is necessary in order to account

for the co-dispersion of the two.*

Having stated thus much on this particular subject, I

will not at present add more, for my object was merely

to call attention to the two suggestive papers of Mr.

Murray and Mr. Wallace, rather than to discuss the

general question itself. I will therefore proceed with

the minutie of this memoir, taking the several species

seriatim, in the order which is indicated in my ‘ Coleop-

tera Atlantidum.’

Fam. CARABIDA.

p. 9 (genus PHEROPSOPHUS) .

(Sp. 22) Pheropsophus hispanicus.

According to MM. Fairmaire and Coquerel (Ann. de

la Soc. Ent. de France, 17; 1866), this noble Brachinid

is in all probability a geographical variety of Dejean’s

P. africanus. ‘Il parait difficile,” they add, ‘‘de ne pas

regarder cet insecte comme une simple vari¢té géogra-

phique du africanus. Quand on compare les individus

provenant d’Andalousie et ceux du Sénégal on trouve

cvidemment une grande différance; mais cette différence

est bien peu de chose si l’on prend pour terme de com-

paraison les Brachines de Tanger. II est du reste facile

de comprendre qu’aprés la séparation de Espagne et de

P Afrique, la race de Brachines restée en Hurope ne pou-

vant se retromper par un croisement continuel avec celle

des régions tropicales, a di diminuer de taille et finir par

constituer un type inférieur au type primitif, comme on

le voit pour les Carabus rugosus et beticus, et comme

nous le verrons plus loin pour un Paussus.”

* During our visit to 8. Iago, of the Cape Verdes, I detected the nearly-

blind Cossyphodes Wollastont amongst vegetable detritus, at San Do-

mingos, which had accumulated in the hollows of ancient trees, high up

above the ground,—situations into which it must without doubt have been

dragged by the Ecophthora, which positively swarmed.

Atlantie Coleoptera. 215

p. 23 (genus Huryenaruus).

(Sp. 59) Hurygnathus Latreillic.

The slightly altered phasis of this insect which obtains

on the Deserta Grande, constituting the “‘ var. 8” of my

‘Insecta Maderensia,’ has lately been described by the

Baron Chaudoir (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 121; 1869) as a

separate species, under the title of H. parallelus ; but I

am nevertheless persuaded that the small characters

which distinguish it are completely worthless in a specific

point of view, and cannot be supposed to indicate more

than an unimportant insular variety. Indeed, I have

already expressed this conviction in no less than three

publications; and I may add that I twice submitted

Desertan examples to the late Dr. Schaum, who affirmed

in the strongest terms that they ought not on any

account to be treated as more than a trifling modifica-

tion, or race, of the Porto-Santan type. My belief is,

that Chaudoir’s conclusion is utterly untenable ; whilst

to cite the insect as simply from “ Madeira” conveys an

altogether false impression of its habitat, and fails to

imply that the form in question may be (and probably

is) a mere insular one. Although from the Madeiran

archipelago, Hurygnathus has never yet, in point of fact,

been detected in ‘‘ Madeira” at all, it being peculiar (so

far as hitherto observed) to Porto Santo and the Deserta

Grande,—on the latter of which islands it assumes a

slightly altered phasis (being, on the average, a little

larger and more parallel, and with the sides of its pro-

thorax somewhat broader and more recurved). And this

leads me to remark how dangerous a practice it is, with-

out some knowledge of the localities which they frequent,

to describe every slightly differing form as necessarily a

specific one ; for I do not hesitate to assert that nearly

every species which permeates these widely scattered

archipelagos will be found (when closely inspected) to

possess some little peculiar feature for each individual

islet on which it occurs; and to treat, therefore, all these

infinitesimal phases as specific is, to my mind, most unphi-

losophical ; for that aborigimally distinct species should

have been brought into existence for every oceanic rock

which happens to have become detached from the cen-

tral mass, is a thesis which few, I think, would endeavour

to uphold, and one which seems to me to carry along

with it its own immediate refutation.

Q 2

216 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

p. 28 (genus CaLaTuus).

(Sp. 78) Calathus advena.

It appears from the Baron Harold’s recently published

Catalogue, that the specific title of this insect must be

changed,—Leconte (Ann. Lye. iv. 217) having cited a

Pristodactyla advena in 1846, and the genus Pristodactyla

being now by universal consent united with Calathus.

Indeed the author has himself made the alteration

already, by proposing for it the unfortunately inappro-

priate name of canariensis ; so that the synonymy of the

species will stand as follows :—

Calathus canariensis.

Calathus advena, Woll. [nec Lec. 1846], Ann. Nat.

Hist. 344 (1862); Id., Cat. Can. Col. 32 (1864); Id., Col.

Atl. 29 (1865). Calathus canariensis, Har., Col. Heft. i.

(1868); Id., Cat. Col. 8361 (1868).

Hab.—Canarienses (Can.) ; in regione intermedia El

Monte dictai 4 meipso semel captus.

p. 48 (genus STENOLOPHUS) .

Whilst residing at S. Antonio da Serra (at an eleva-

tion of about 2,000 feet), during our late sojourn in Ma-

deira, I met with seven or eight individuals of the

European S. exiguus, by sifting fallen leaves in the httle

wood (near to the church) known as the “ Circa;” and

on our return to England I found that there were two

examples of the same species in the collection of the late

Mr. Bewicke, which (having been placed amongst his

series of the Bradycellus excultus) had escaped our notice.

Hence, although only now for the first time added to the

fauna (though it is recorded by Mr. Crotch as having

been taken in 8. Miguel and Terceira, at the Azores),

Mr. Bewicke claims the priority of capture. Judging

from the examples before me, the Madeiran ones would

seem to belong principally to the more pallid state (in

which the prothorax and suture are appreciably rufes-

cent, or diluted in hue) which has occasionally, in more

northern latitudes, been regarded as a distinct species

Atlantic Coleoptera. 217

under the name of lwridus, and which, according to Mr.

Crotch, is the one which obtains at the Azores: the two

forms, however, as in Europe, fade off gradually into

each other. The following diagnosis will suffice to in-

augurate the species into our Atlantic catalogue.

Stenolophus eaxiquus.

S. oblongus, nitidus, nigro-piceus, prothorace obsolete

dilutiore (7. e., paululum magis rufescenti); elytris leviter

striatis ; antennis ad basin, palpis pedibusque piceo-testa-

ceis, tibiis versus apicem plus minus evidenter obscuriori-

bus.

Long. corp. lin. circa 1%.

Acupalpus exiqguus, Dej., Spec. iv. 456 (1829). Steno-

lophus ewiquus, Daws., Geod. Brit. 161 (1854); Schaum,

Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. i. 620 (1860).

Variat colore dilutiore,—plus minus fusco-piceus, pro-

thorace clarius rufescente, elytris in limbo et sutura

sensim dilutioribus.

Acupalpus luridus, Dej., loc. cit. 454 (1829). Stenolo-

phus luridus, Daws., loc. cit. 160 (1854). Stenolophus

exiguus var., Schaum, loc. cit. 620 (1860). Stenolophus

luridus, Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 369 (1868).

Hab.—Maderensis (Mad.); inter folia dejecta ad S. Ant.

da Serra a meipso, necnon olim a Dom. Bewicke, parce

deprehensus.

p. 52 (genus TRrEcHUS).

After species 156, add :—

Trechus debilis, n. sp.

T. angustulo-oblongus, nitidiusculus, subdepressus,

rufo-piceus, capite necnon elytrorum sutura (limboque

versus apicem et humeros) obsolete dilutioribus; protho-

race subquadrato, basi vix angustato; elytris oblongis,

depressiusculis, profunde striatis; antennis pedibusque

longiusculis, graciusculis, testaceis, illis et interdum tibis

plus minus obscurioribus.

218 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Long. corp. lin. circa 1}.

Hab.—Maderensis (Mad.); in sylvaticis editioribus ad

S. Ant. da Serra, tempore vernali A.D. 1870, sat copiose

repertus.

Obs. Species 7. flavomarginato affinis, sed nisi fallor

certe distincta. Differt corpore angustiore, oblongiore,

graciliore, ac paulo depressiore, sensim minus nitido sed

omnino dilutiore (magis rufescente), capite preecipue

minus obscuro; prothorace paululum magis quadrato

(i. e., postice sensim minus angustato); elytris ad latera

magis parallelis, subdepressioribus, ac multo profundius

striatis, magis concoloribus (7. e.,1n limbo minus evidenter

testaceis); antennis pedibusque sub-longioribus et sub-

gracilioribus.

Several examples of this Trechus were taken by myself

during April and May of 1870, at S. Antonio da Serra,

in the intermediate elevations of Madeira,—in company

with the 7’. flavomarginatus, which is so universal within

the wooded districts of that island. There can be no

doubt, I think, that the species is perfectly distinct from

(although closely allied to) the latter,—being not only

narrower, slenderer, and more oblong, but likewise per-

ceptibly less shining, and altogether more diluted, or

rufescent, in hue (the head being especially redder); its

prothorax also is just appreciably squarer, or less narrowed.

behind ; its elytra are straighter, or more parallel at the

sides, a trifle flatter, and much more deeply striate, as

well as more concolorous (there beimg less trace of a pallid

margin); and its limbs are, if anything, somewhat longer

and slenderer. It was far from uncommon throughout

the 8. Antonio da Serra region ; the majority of my spe-

cimens having been captured by sifting dead leaves and

refuse in, and near, the laurel woods.

(Sp. 160) Trechus quadricollis.

This species was founded, in 1854, upon a single example

which was captured by myself in the autumn of 1847 at

the Curral das Romeiras—on the mountains above Fun-

chal; and I have already more than once expressed my

conviction that further material was greatly needed, in

order to determine as to whether or not it is a mere state,

or local variety, of the 7’. custos. During the past winter

Atlantie Coleoptera. 219

and spring I met with several individuals at ‘ the Mount ”

(a region adjoining the Curral das Romeiras ravine) which

I have no doubt whatsoever are conspecific with my

original example, and which I now feel satisfied cannot

be separated specifically from the TY. custos. Indeed a

sufficient series has convinced me that the quadricollis

can scarcely be upheld as even a well-defined ‘ variety,”

—the particular examples which accord with my original

one being merely a trifle smaller and paler than the rest,

and possibly a little more parallel in outline; so that

I would desire to suppress the quadricollis as a mere un-

important phasis (if indeed a ‘phasis” at all) of the

custos, and to cite, consequently, as an additional synonym,

the 1’. tetracoderus of the Baron Harold’s recent Catalogue

(394, A.D. 1868) ,—a title which he imposed upon my

supposed species in consequence of the name quadricollis

having been preoccupied for a T’rechus, by Putzeys, in

1847,

p- 59 (genus Bremprpium).

(Sp. 182) Bembidiwm concolor.

It appears to be necessary to change the name of this

insect, that of concolor having been pre-occupied by

Kirby (Fna. Bor. Am. iv. 54) for a Bembidium during

the previous year, 1837. And this perhaps is less to

be regretted, since M. Brullé’s “ description,” published

in Webb and Berthelot’s ponderous work in 1838, is so

marvellously maccurate that it simply amounts to no

description at all. Having given a full diagnosis of it in

1864, and called attention to the exact points in which it

is more especially peculiar, I need not insert a fresh one

here, but will merely propose for it the title of fortunatum

(the insect being a very characteristic one in the Cana-

rian archipelago), citing its changed synonymy as

follows :—

Bembidium fortunatum.

Bembidium concolor, Brullé [nee Kby. 1837], in Webb

et Berth. (Col.) 58 (1858); Woll., Cat. Can. Col. 70

(1864); Id., Col. Atl. 61 (1865).

Hab.—Canarienses (in Fert. soli hactenus haud ob-

servatum); per margines aquarum, necnon ad rupes

aquosas, hinec inde vulgare.

220 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Fam. DYTISCIDA.

p- 67 (genus CoLYMBETES).

The Atlantic species of this group fall more properly

under Hschcholtz’s genus Seutopterus, which I have

hitherto regarded as scarcely more than a subdivision of

Colymbetes proper. As, however, it appears to be usually

acknowledged, and the only exponents of it which have

yet been brought to light are the coriaceus and lanio (the

former of which is found in the south of Europe and the

Canaries, whilst the latter is supposed to be peculiar to

Madeira), and the pustulatus from Italy, it will be better

perhaps to uphold it as generically distinct, and to cite

the species consequently as Scutopteri. They seem to

differ from the true Colymbetes in having the first four

joints of their four anterior male feet powerfully dilated,

the basal three being likewise studded beneath with

minute cushions or pulvilli. Although I have not yet

seen that particular sex of the species which I have

enunciated below under the title of imbricatus, it never-

theless has so very much in common both with the

coriaceus and lanio that I have little doubt it must be a

true member of the same actual group. Of the three

Atlantic Scutopteri, it will be desirable to place the coria-

ceus first, then the imbricatus (a diagnosis of which I

subjoin below), and lastly the lanio.

Scutopterus inbricatus, n, sp.

S. oblongo-ovatus, elongatus, subopacus, nigro-piceus,

capitis parte antica maculisque duabus frontalibus et pro-

thoracis lateribus piceo-ferrugineis ; capite prothoraceque

rugose coriaceis, hoc antice angustato; elytris elongato-

ovatis basi truncatis, paululum nitidioribus, grosse sub-

imbricato-rugulosis et obsolete subtestaceo commixtis,

singulis longitudinaliter triseriatim notatis; antennis

palpisque rufo-ferrugineis, pedibus rufo-piceis.

Long. corp. lin. 10.

Hab.—Maderensis (Mad.); exemplar unicum, sc. feemi-

neum, olim misit clariss. Baronus de Paiva.

Obs. Species S. lanioni affinis, sed corpore magis

ovato (antice, et in elytris et in prothorace, angustiore),

elytris obscurioribus, minus nitidis, et rugose imbricato-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 221

asperatis, pedibus (ciliisque in posterioribus) piceSten-

tioribus. A S. coriaceo (Huropeeo et Canariensi) differt

corpore minus obtuse oblongo (7. e., antice angustiore)

omnino minus nigro, capite distinctius maculato et pro

thorace ad latera ferrugineo, necnon etiam in elytris

obscure pallido-irroratis, prothorace paulo minus trans-

verso, postice minus sinuato (angulis basalibus rectioribus),

scutello sensim minus triangulari, et elytrorum impres-

sionibus (in seriebus tribus dispositis) magis rotundatis

punctiformibus.

The single individual (a female) from which the above

diagnosis has been drawn out was sent to me from

Madeira, about two years ago, by the Baron Paiva; and

it has since been placed aside, hoping that further material

might perhaps enable me to speak with greater precision

on the specific feature of the other sex, no less than on

those of the present one. As no further examples how-

ever have been brought to light, and the distinctions of

the solitary one now before me are too important to be

ignored, I feel compelled to notice it in this memoir, and

have proposed therefore the title of ¢mbricatus for the

species which it must be presumed to represent.

Judging, consequently, from the only type to which I

have access, the S. imbricatus, while differing widely

from them both, appears to be in many respects exactly

intermediate between the S. coriaceus (of southern

Europe and the Canaries) and the Madeiran S. lanio.

From both of them it recedes (though especially from

the former) in its less oblong, or obtuse, outline,—it

being perceptibly narrower in front, and therefore alto-

gether more elongate-ovute; whilst from the lanio it

further differs in its elytra bemg not only much darker

in hue, but also less shining, and scupltured after the sin-

gular fashion which obtams in the S. coriaceus, being

closely roughened with coarse transverse imbrications.

Its legs likewise are more piceous, with the long hairs

which fringe the four hinder ones much darker, or less

fulvescent.

Although agreeing in its sculpture with the S. coria-

ceus, the present Scutopterus (apart from its outline being

more narrowed anteriorly) differs from that species in its

colour being altogether less black, in its head being more

brightly maculated, in its prothorax (instead of conco-

lorous) being ferruginous at the sides (as in the S. lanio),

222 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

and “in its elytra having an obscure wnder-tint of testa-

ceous, though at the same time so densely mottled with

black as to appear at first sight almost completely

dark. Its prothorax likewise is a little less transverse,

and not quite so undulated (or sinuate) along its basal

edge, causing the hinder angles to be more decidedly

right-angles ; its scutellum is rounder, or less triangular ;

and the triple series of its elytral impressions are more

punctiform or less linear and elongate. *

p- 71 (genus Eunzcrss) .

After species 213, add :—

Eunectes helvolus.

H. ovatus, angustulus, luteo-griseus, clypeo antice vix

marginato; capite postice nigro, et macula frontali

magni plus minus suffusa antice bipartita ornato; pro-

thorace vitti transversi abbreviata ornato, ad latera

oblique rectissimo, angulis posticis acutiusculis; elytris

punctis magnis sat profundis in triplici serie et ubique

punctulis minoribus nigris notatis, smgulis maculis aua-

bus minutis sublateralibus et fascia transvers’ tenui den-

tata postica (plus minus obsoleta) nigris ornatis.

Long corp. lin. 6.

Hunectes helvolus, Klug, Symb. Phys. 33:3. Hunectes

eonicollis, Woll., Ann. Nat. Hist. vn. 97 (1861). Hunectes

helvolus, Id., Col. Hesp. 35 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; in Salinis ad Paul do Mar

a Dom. Moniz deprehensus.

A few examples of this Hunectes were captured by

Senhor Moniz at Paul do Mar, in the west of Madeira,

from amongst plants of Ruppia rostellata, Koch, in the

briny water of a Saltern. It would appear, therefore, to

be a saline species—a circumstance to which I called

attention, at p. 36 of my ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum,’

whilst commenting on its probable habitat in the Cape

* From the pustulatus of southern Europe, which appears to be re-

garded as a Scutopterus, it seems (judging from the published diagnosis)

to differ even structurally,—the claws of the four anterior male feet in

that species being described as of unequal dimensions. Moreover the

pustulatus is said to have an enescent tinge, with the sculpture of its

elytra the same as that of its head and prothorax.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 223

Verde archipelago. It doubtless possesses a wide

African range; and I have already [Ann. Nat. Hist. vii.

99] expressed my belief that Aubé was mistaken in

treating it as a variety of the almost comopolitan JL.

sticticus.

Fam. HELOPHORIDA.

p- 73 (genus OcCHTHEBIUS) .

Before species 221, and commencing the genus, add :—

Ochthebius algicola, n. sp.

O. angustulus, elongatulo-oblongus, submetallico-niger,

nitidulus, (nisi oculo fortissime armato) calvus; capite

postice foveis binis punctiformibus impresso, leviter et

confuse ruguloso- sed prothorace distinctius punctatis,

hoe coleopteris subangustiore, postice paulo angustato

sed haud pellucide (ut in Ochthebiis plurimis) marginato,

tenuiter canaliculato, antice et postice levissime trans-

versim impresso (impressione posticéd lunulati) ; elytris

oblongis, dense et rugose striato-punctatis (prima facie

quasi subasperato-crenulatis) ; antennis (clavi obscuriore

excepta), palpis pedibusque piceo-testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. vix. 1.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); inter Confervas marinas in

aquis omnino salinis ad “Gorgulho,” haud procul ab

urbe Funchalensi, tempore vernali A.D. 1870, a meipso

detectus.

The habits of this most interesting Ochthebius appear

to be precisely similar to those of the Calobius Heeri,—

two examples of it having been captured by myself,

during our late sojourn in Madeira, from amongst marine

Conferve, in pools of unadulterated sea-water left by the

tide on the rocks (at the Gorgulho) to the westward of

Funchal. Indeed at the time (never suspecting that any

other species would possess the same very anomalous

mode of life, and despite its wanting the long wiry legs

and unsculptured surface of Calobius*) I actually mistook

* In the recently published Catalogue of Gemminger and Harold, Calo-

bius is cited as a synonym of Ochthebius, which can only be due to their

total ignorance of its structural peculiarities,—the genus, although utterly

distinct from them both, haying in reality more in common with Hydrena.

224 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

it for that imsect, and so merely secured these two indi-

viduals; though in all probability I might have easily

obtained more, had it once occurred to me that it was

distinct.

The O. algicola is narrower and more oblong (or pa-

rallel) than any of the Ochthebit which have hitherto

been detected in these Atlantic islands, and except under

avery high magnifying power it is totally devoid of all

traces of even the minutest pubescence. With the ex-

ception of its piceo-testaceous limbs, it is of a dark

hue, being but very faimtly submetallic; its prothorax

(which is, if anything, a trifle narrower than the widest

part of the elytra) is free from any portion of pellucid

margin (so common in the Ochthebi), and is very lightly

impressed with an anterior and (curved) posterior trans-

verse fovea; and its elytra are densely and coarsely

striate-punctate, having almost the appearance at first

sight of being subasperate and closely crenulated.

(Sp. 223) Ochthebius subpictus.

Madeira proper must be added to the habitat of this Och-

thebius ; for although the individuals taken by myself in

Porto Santo were all that had until quite lately been ob-

served, a specimen has more recently been communicated

by the Baron Paiva which was captured in Madeira.

Being, in Porto Santo, found in streams which are brack-

ish, it is not improbable that it may occur likewise in

water which is almost, or even entirely, saline: at any

rate in the same bottle which contamed it there are

examples of the Calobius Heeri, which resides amongst

marine Confervee in the small pools of actual sea-water

(along the rocky shores both of Madeira and Porto

Santo) ; and I cannot but think it likely, therefore, that

this single Ochthebius subpictus may perhaps have been

captured in company with the Calobii.

Fam. HYDROPHILIDA.

p. 77 (genus PHILHYDRUS).

It is now more than a year since Dr. Sharp, who has

studied the Huropean Philhydri with considerable care,

detected some examples of Thomson’s P. maritimus

Atlantic Coleoptera. 225

amongst the Canarian material which had been submitted

to him by Mr. G. R. Crotch, and which was collected by

the latter in the island of Gomera. Dr. Sharp having

communicated this fact to me, I requested him to exa-

mine critically the very variable species (so abundant in

many parts of the Madeiran and Canarian archipelagos)

which I had hitherto referred, on the authority originally

of Dr. Aubé, to the melanocephalus of Olivier; and the

result 1s that he considered it as wrongly assigned to

the latter, being identical, rather, with what he had

httle doubt is the politus of Kiister (a species which

occurs in Mediterranean latitudes, and which he had

himself received from the south of Spain). This, there-

fore, apart from affording an absolute addition to the

catalogue in the European P. maritimus (examples of

which had certainly never before come beneath my no-

tice) , necessitates a change in the nomenclature of the

other species—erroneously regarded by myself as Olivier’s

melanocephalus; and I would desire, therefore, to give

the two following diagnoses—which will not only point

out the difference between the species in question, but

which will enable me also to correct the synonymy of the

latter, and to call attention to its topographical range as

hitherto ascertained.

Philhydrus maritimus.

P. oblongo-ovalis, parum convexus, subnitidus, luride

fusco-testaceus sed in limbo sensim dilutior, ubique cre-

bre et argute punctatus (punctis in elytris vix remotiori-

bus); antennarum clava obscuriore ; coleopteris seriebus

tribus irregularibus punctorum majorum utrinque longi-

tudinaliter notatis.

Mas: tarsorum unguiculis fere angulatim curvatis, ad

basin dente valido mstructis.

Fem.: tarsorum unguiculis ad basin dente minore in-

structis.

Long. corp. lin. vix 2$.

Philhydrus maritimus, Thoms., Skand. Col. 11. 96 (1860) ;

Sharp, Ann. Nat. Hist. 14 (1870).

‘Hab.—Canariensis (Gom.); a DD. Crotch estate A.D.

1864 parce deprehensus.

226 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

The pale lurid or brownish-testaceous colour, and com-

paratively coarsely punctured surface, of this Huropean

Philhydrus (the palpi of which seem to be immaculate)

will readily distinguish it from the followimg species—

which (although it varies occasionally into a somewhat

testaceous hue) is always darker (at times, indeed, being

nearly black), and much more lightly sculptured. As

already stated, it was captured by the Messrs. Crotch

during the summer of 1864 in Gomera.

Phithydrus politus.

P. oblongo-ovalis, convexus, nitidus, niger sed in

limbo dilutior, ubique crebre et subtiliter punctulatus

(punctis im elytris vix obsoletioribus et vix remotiori-

bus); capite maculis duabus lateralibus ante oculos, an-

tennis (clavi excepti), palpis (articulo 2do ad basin

interdum excepto) tarsisque rufo-testaceis; coleopteris

seriebus tribus irregularibus punctorum majorum utrinque

longitudinaliter notatis.

Mas: tarsorum unguiculis fere angulatim curvatis, ad

basin dente valido instructis.

Fem.: tarsorum unguiculis ad basin dente minore in-

structis.

Long. corp. lin. circa 23-3.

Var. 8.—Subangustior, prothorace obsoletius punctato,

palpis omnino testaceis (nec articulo 2do basi infuscato).

[ Fuerteventura. |

Var. y.—Pallidior, sed palporum articulo 2do basi in-

fuscato. [| Fuerteventura. |

Var. 6.— Var. y” similis, sed palpis omnino pallidis.

| Porto Santo. |

Var. e.— Var. 6” similis, sed corpore nigrescentiore ;

aut “‘ var. 8” similis, sed prothorace distinctius punctato.

[Porto Santo. |

Hydrophilus melanocephalus, Brullé [nec Oliv. 1795],

in Webb et Berth. (Col.) 58 (1838). Philhydrus politus,

Kust., Kaif. Hur. 18°9 (1849). Philhydrus atlanticus ?

Blanch., in voy. au Pole Sud, Zool., iv. 51 (1853). Phil-

hydrus melanocephalus, Woll. [nec Oliv. 1795], Ins. Mad.

98 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 32 (1857); Id. Cat. Can.

Col. 91 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 77 (1865). Philhydrus

politus, Sharp, Ann. Nat. Hist. 14 (1870).

Atlantic Coleoptera. 227

Hab.—Maderenses {Mad., Pto Sto.), et Canarienses

(Lanz., Fuert., Can., Ten., Gom.) ; im aquis et aquosis,

hine inde vulgaris.

Although presenting many slight differences, both in

colour and strength of punctation, according to the

locality in which it is found, this appears to be the uni-

versal Philhydrus in the Madeiran and Canarian archi-

pelagos ; and I doubt not that it will be detected eventu-

ally in every one of the islands where there is sufficient

water for its existence during the drier seasons. It

swarms in the brackish streams of Porto Santo, mm the

Madeiran Group; and it has also been captured by Senhor

Moniz in the Salinas at Paul do Mar, in the west of

Madeira proper. At the Canaries, I have myself met

with it in Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Grand Canary,

Teneriffe, and Gomera,—ain the first two and last of which

it was found likewise by Mr. Gray, and in the last by the

Messrs. Crotch.

Fam. CORYLOPHIDA.

p- 91 (genus Sactum).

(Sp. 262) Saciwm pusillum.

A late revision by Kraatz (Berl. Ent. Zeitsch. xiii. 283)

of the European members of this genus, and of Arthro-

lips, has elicited the remark that, in his opinion, the

Madeiran Saciwm which I have hitherto referred to the

S. pusillum, Gyll., of northern Europe, is in reality dis-

tinct; and he has, consequently, proposed for it the

specific title of madere. It is to Mr. Rye that I am in-

debted for drawing my attention to Kraatz’s exact obser-

vations on the subject; and it would appear that Gyllen-

hal’s true pusillum (which has a less extended range than

what is usually supposed, all the examples which had

come under Kraatz’s notice being from Finland) is larger

and more finely punctured than the Madeiran species, as

well as darker in colour, and with the hinder margin of

its prothorax conspicuously bordered with brown. He

thea compares the Madeiran insect with the obscurum,

Sahlb. (=pusillum, Redt., nec Gyll.)—a species found in

central Europe—and adds that, while in the obsewrum

the third tarsal joint is only slightly shorter than the

228 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

second, it is in the Madeiran insect scarcely half as

long: and, also, that whilst the second joint of the an-

tennal club is, in the obsewrwm, much smaller than those

which are contiguous to it [as in the typical Anzsoto-

mide], the species from Madeira has that articulation

distinctly larger than the preceding one.* Hence, since

it can be referred neither to the pusilium of Gyllenhal,

nor yet to the obscurum of Sahlberg, and it clearly is not

conspecific with either the nanwm of Mulsant, nor the

brunneum of Brisout (the two other species hitherto ac-

knowledged as European), Dr. Kraatz regards it as dis-

tinct; and I may, therefore, cite its amended synonymy

as follows :—

Sacium madere.

Clypeaster pusillus, Woll. [nec Gyll., 1810], Ins. Mad.

A74, (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 140 (1857). Sacium

pusillum, Id., Col. Atl. 91 (1865). Sacium madere,

Kraatz, Berl. Ent. Zeitsch. xin. (1869).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Des.) ; in graminosis inter-

mediis, passim.

p. 91 (genus ARTHROLIPS).

: rthrolups obscurus.

(Sp. 264) Arthroliy b

From the synonyms of this species the Cossyphus

obscurus, Sahlb., must be erased,—Sahlberg’s insect, ac-

cording to Kraatz, being (as above implied) a true

Sacium, and not an Arthrolips. Hence, since the title of

obscurus for this sect (assuming it to be identical with

the south-Huropean one) rests on a mere catalogue (that of

Dejean’s) it cannot be retained, and we are compelled to

adopt (as, in point of fact, I did in my ‘ Ins. Mad’ and

‘Cat. Mad. Col.?) Comolli’s name of piceus instead. And

I will therefore cite the species afresh, thus:—

* T called special attention to this fact at p. 90 of the ‘Col. Atl.,’ where,

judging from the sole material to which I had access (namely, the exponents

from Madeira), I stated that the only genera in the Corylophide in which

that particular structure (namely, the reduced proportions of the second

joint of the antennal club) is not indicated were Sactwm and Arthrolips.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 229

Arthrolips piceus.

Clypeaster obscwrus, Dej., Cat. 129 (1821). Clypeaster

piceus, (Kunze), Comolli, De Nov. Col. 50 (1837). Gry-

phinus piceus, Redt., Fna. Austr. 574 (1849). Arthrolips

piceum, Woll., Ins. Mad. 476 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col.

142 (1857). Arthrolips obscurus, Duval, Gen. des Col.

d’Hur. ii. 232 (1859); Woll., Col. Atl. 91 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Des.) , et Canarienses (T'en.) ;

in inferioribus intermediisque, hinc inde vulgaris.

Fam. PTILIADA.

p. 96 (genus AcROTRICHIS).

After species 274 insert :—

Acrotrichis brevicornis.

Acrotrichis brevicornis, Mots., Bull. de Mosc. 174 (1868).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; sub quisquiliis in inter-

mediis degens.

Mixed-up with my examples of the A. atomaria, from

the intermediate districts of Madeira, are a certain number

which are said to differ slightly from the rest (but the

“ differences” in which are to my eye totally inappreci-

able), and which constitute the form for which Motschoul-

sky has recently proposed the name of brevicornis. During

our late visit to the island we met with it both in the

region of “the Mount” and in that of 8. Antonio da

Serra; but until the Monograph of Mr. Matthews makes

its appearance I will not attempt to give a regular diag-

nosis of the “ species,” or to do more than just allude to the

fact of its acknowledgment both by him and by Mots-

choulsky. All indeed that the latter (who cites ‘ Dal-

matia” for its habitat, as well as Madeira) says concern-

ing it is as follows :—“ Forme enti¢rment de l atomaria,

mais moitié plus petite, luisante 4 ponctuation trés fine,

pubescence sur les élytres assez forte, pattes testacées,

antennes noiratres, ne dépassant pas en longueur les

angles post. du corselet.”

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871,—PaART II, (MAY.) R

230 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

(Sp. 275) Acrotrichis anthracina.

This Acrotrichis, which was enunciated by Mr. Matthews

in 1865 from the Canarian material of the Messrs. Crotch,

is stated by the former to have since been captured by

himself in England (namely, during the summer of 1867,

in Sherwood Forest) ,—so that the species, ike so many

others in this family, is a European one. Speaking of

his British examples, Mr. Matthews says (Hnt. Month.

Mag. v. 10; 1868) ‘*'The anthracina is a distinct and

well-marked species; it belongs to the first division of

the genus, which comprises the atomaria, and others,

whose thorax is much dilated at the base, with its poste-

rior angles produced beyond the shoulders of the elytra ;

but from all these it may easily be known by its small

size, and short black antennz ;”’ and as he then charac-

terizes it afresh, it may be desirable perhaps to give his

emended diagnosis,—stating the references up to the

present date.

Acrotrichis anthracina.

A. ovata, maribus postice valde attenuata, valde con-

vexa, nigra, nitida, pilis brevibus argenteis parce vestita,

capite modico, antice elongato, oculis sat magnis, pro-

minulis ; pronoto modico, valde convexo, postice dilatato,

tuberculis sat magnis, ordinibus irregulariter sinuatis

confertim dispositis, interstitiis nitidis, subtiliter reticu-

latis, ornato, lateribus rotundatis, late marginatis, angu-

hs posterioribus valde productis, acutissimis; elytris

longioribus, maribus valde attenuatis, ordinibus sat re-

motis, sinuatis, modice asperatis, lateribus fere rectis,

leviter marginatis, apicibus vix dilutioribus, vix rotun-

datis; pedibus leete flavis; antennis brevioribus, piceo-

nigris.

Long. corp. lin. }.

Trichopteryx anthracina, Matth., Ent. Month. Mag. ii.

85 (1865). Acrotrichis anthracina, Woll., Col. Atl. 98,

et Append. 14 (1865). Trichopterye anthracina, Matth.,

Ent. Month. Mag. v. 10 (1868).

Hab.—Canarienses (Gom.) ; 4 DD. Crotch parce de-

prehensa.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 231

(Sp. 279) Acrotrichis Montandonii.

From the synonymy of this Madeiran Acrotrichis the

first two lines must be erased, for Mr. Matthews (who

originally identified it with the European A. Montandonii)

now informs me that he is inclined to accept the opinion

of Motschoulsky—who has recently cited (I will not say

described”) it, under the name of “nigricornis,” as

distinct from that species. Until Mr. Matthews’ Mono-

graph shall have made its appearance I will not presume

to say what its exact differential characters may be, or

how it is undoubtedly separable from the A. Montandonii ;

but, acting on the step taken by Motschoulsky (and

subsequently endorsed by Mr. Matthews), I will merely

call attention as follows to the change in the synonymy,

—adding also that I find an example in my possession

which was captured by myself on one of the other

islands of the Madeiran archipelago, namely the Deserta

Grande.

Acrotrichis nigricornis.

Acrotrichis pumila, Woll. [nec Erich.], Ins. Mad. 109

(1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 35 (1857). Acrotrichis in-

sularis, Id. [nee Mann.], Ann. Nat. Hist. viii. 109 (1861).

Acrotrichis Montandonti, Id. [nec Allib.], Col. Atl. 99

(1865). <Acrotrichis nigricornis, Mots., Bull. Mose. 174

(1869) [sec. Matthews].

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Des.) ; hine inde in sub-

inferioribus intermedusque, inter quisquilias.

I should add, perhaps, that Motschoulsky’s “ descrip-

tion”? of it is as follows: ‘‘ Taille, forme et couleurs de

la depressa, Gillm., mais plus convexe, plus Iuisante,

corselet large postérieurement, avec ses angles p. un peu

aigus et saillants, antennes enticrement foncées méme

leurs prémiers articles, pas plus longues que le corselet,

élytres paralléles.”

(Sp. 280) Acrotrichis Guerinii.

This Acrotrichis was defined by myself in 1857, as the

““obsceena”’—a title, however, which I was compelled

subsequently to sink into a synonym on account of the

species having been identified by Mr. Matthews with the

R 2

232 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Guerinit of Allibert. But lately Mr. Matthews has altered

his opinion (having met with the same exact form in

England as the Madeiran one), and has come to the

conclusion that it is, after all, distinct from the Guerin ;

so that my original title of obscwna is again adopted by

him. Hence I have no choice (in the face of so high an

authority) but to suppress the name under which it is

cited in the ‘Col. Atl.,’ and revert (as below) to that

under which I first enunciated it in my Madeiran Cata-

logue. Mr. Matthews’ British example was captured by

himself, during the summer of 1867, in Sherwood Forest ;

and in his published observations concerning it, he re-

marks (Hnt. Month. Mag. v. 10; 1868) that it “belongs

to a group of which the Guwerinii may be considered as

the type, and all of which have pale or rufescent elytra,

and the thorax scarcely dilated at the base.” And he

subsequently observes ‘‘ when I mounted the specimen I

had taken at Sherwood, I was much struck by the ap-

pearance ofits sculpture; this led to further examination,

and I found that, though differmg from the Guerinii, it

coincided exactly in this respect with obscena, and that

both also differed from G'werinii in the comparative length

of the elytra, and a few other points of minor importance.

I therefore feel no doubt that obscwna is distinct from

Guerinii, and that Mr. Wollaston’s name must be restored

to the species.” Mr. Matthews having given an emended

diagnosis of the A. obscena, I may as well (as in the case

of the anthracina) insert it as follows, adding at the same

time its corrected synonymy :—

Acrotrichis obsceena.

A. oblonga, elongata, valde convexa, capite atque

pronoto nigris, elytris nigro-castaneis, pilis brevibus

flavescentibus parce vestita, capite magno, sat elongato

prominulo, oculis vix prominentibus; pronoto modico,

postice vix dilatato, tuberculis sat magnis, ordinibus in-

terruptis dispositis, interstitiis nitidis, confertim reticu-

latis ornato, lateribus levissime marginatis, leviter rotun-

datis, angulis posterioribus acutis, vix productis ; elytris

brevioribus, quadratis, haud attenuatis, ordinibus trans-

versis, interruptis, sat profunde asperatis, sutura elevata,

apicibus valde rotundatis; antennis brevioribus, nigro-

piceis ; pedibus flavis.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 233

Long. corp. lin. circa 4.

Acrotrichis obsceena, Woll., Cat. Mad. Col. 35 (1857).

Acrotrichis Guerinit, Id. [nec Allib., 1844], Col. Atl. 100

(1865). Trichopteryx obsceena, Matth., Ent. Month.

Mag. v. 12 (1868).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.), et Canarienses (G'om.) ;

precipue sub stercore bovino et equino in locis inferiori-

bus degens.

After species 281, add :—

Acrotrichis ovatula.

Acrotrichis ovatula, Mots., Bull. Mosc. 175 (1869).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; inter quisquilias in ipsa

urbe Funchalensi 4 meipso sat copiose reperta.

Had I only Motschoulsky’s short observation (which

takes the place of a diagnosis) to judge from, I should

have been utterly unable to form any idea whatsoever

about this nevertheless well-marked little Acrotrichis ;

but since so high an authority as Mr. Matthews is satis-

fied that it must pertain to a minute species of which I

captured many examples, amongst refuse, in a garden in

Funchal, I am content to cite it accordingly. It is the

smallest Acrotrichis proper which has hitherto been de-

tected in any of these Atlantic islands, being but slightly

larger than the Nephanes Titan; and my specimens were

all of them taken by sifting rubbish in the garden of the

Quinta dos Jasmineiros, on the western outskirts of

Funchal. Motschoulsky’s ‘‘description” of it is as

follows :—‘ Forme et coleurs voisines de celles de la de-

pressa, Gillm., iv. 3, mais un peu plus petite et plus con-

vexe, élytres et antennes plus courtes, les premicres plus

rétrécies vers la base ; ponctuation assez forte, pubescence

éparse, antennes obscures.”

p- 101 (genus Prenipium).

(Sp. 283) Ptenidium levigatum.

This Canarian Ptenidiwm was originally identified by

Mr. Matthews (apparently from Erichson’s diagnosis)

with the European P. levigatwm of Gillmeister; but Mr.

Matthews now informs me that, having since received

234 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

continental types of the latter, he finds that the species

from the Canaries is in reality distinct ; and he has con-

sequently proposed for it, in his Monograph of the family

(which is already in the press), the name of Bruckii.

Without therefore attempting to anticipate Mr. Matthews’

diagnosis, I will just call attention to the fact—that the

synonymy of the species will, consequently, have to be

thus emended :—

Ptenidium Bruckii.

Ptenidium levigatum, Woll. [nee Gillm.], Cat. Can.

~ Coll. 104 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 101 (1865). (Ptenidiwm

Bruckii, Matth., Mon. Trichopt.).

Hab.—Canarienses (Can., Ten., Gom., Palma, Hierro) ;

sub quisquiliis in inferioribus intermediisque, late sed

parce diffusum.

(Sp. 284) Ptenidium apieale.

The Atlantic examples of this Ptenidium (so abundant

throughout the Madeiran and Canarian archipelagos)

differ a little from the ordinary ones of the P. apicale, of

more northern latitudes; but Mr. Matthews until lately

did not think that the points of discrepancy were of suf-

ficient significance to indicate more than a very slight

geographical variety of the common Huropean species.

Motschoulsky, however, in a recent paper on the Ptiliade,

having separated the Atlantic form under the name “ ato-

maroides” (stating, moreover, that it occurs likewise in

Georgia and Dalmatia), Mr. Matthews is inclined now to

acknowledge it as distinct; and I have no choice, there-

fore, with such an authority before me, but to do so like-

wise. Motschoulsky gives no formal diagnosis of his

P. atomaroides, but makes the following remark: ‘‘ Forme

et couleurs voisines de celles de l’apicalis, Gillm. viii. 2,

mais toujours plus grand et plus large aux élytres, ce qui

lui donne l’aspect trapu du pusillum ; de chaque cdté de

la base du corselet on voit une impression transyversale

fovéiforme et sur le milieu des vestiges de deux points;

élytres ponctuées par des points trés-fins, dispos¢s en stries

et garnis chacum d’un poil assez long.’ Accepting

therefore the atomaroides as distinct from the European

P.apicale (which I must confess that I do with consider-

able reluctance) , the synonymy of the species will require

to be emended thus :—

Atlantic Coleoptera. 235

Ptenidium atomaroides.

Ptenidium apicale, Woll. [nec Gillm., 1845], Ins. Mad.

110 (1845); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 37 (1857); Id., Cat. Can.

Col. 104 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 101 (1865). Ptenidium

atomaroides, Mots., Bull. Mosc. 191 (1869).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Des.) , et Canarienses (Fuert.,

Can., Ten., Gom.) ; inter quisquilias, vulgare.

p- 102 (genus Prine.a).

(Sp. 287) Ptinella Proteus.

Of this Ptinella, so abundant locally beneath the damp

rotting bark of trees within the cultivated districts of

Madeira, it appears necessary once more to alter the

name under which it must be cited,—Mr. Matthews

having received types from Dr. Heer which prove it to

be conspecific with his T'richopteryx testacea. Its sy-

nonymy, therefore, so for as I am able to ascertain,

would seem to be as follows; though whether the species

is truly distinct, as I very much doubt, from the one

which I have quoted on Mr. Matthews’ authority (vide

Col. Atl. 102) as the P. aptera, Guer., from the Canarian

archipelago I will not undertake, at any rate until Mr.

Matthews’ Monograph has been published, to decide.

Ptinella testacea.

Trichopteryx testacea, (Chevr.), Heer, Fna. Col. Helv.

376 (1841). Ptinella aptera, Woll. [nee Guer.], Ann.

Nat. Hist. vii. 101 (1861). Trichopteryx ratisbonensis,

Id. [nec Gillm.], ibid. x. 341 (1862). Trichopteryx Pro-

teus, Matth., in Zool. xx. 8262 (1862); Woll., Col. Atl.

103 et Append. 15 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); sub cortice laxo humido,

hinc inde in intermediis inferioribusque vulgaris.

Fam. NITIDULIDA.

p- 110 (genus Meticrruss).

(Sp. 311) Meligethes echit.

I think it very doubtful whether the few Canarian

examples which were taken by the Messrs. Crotch in

236 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Teneriffe, Gomera, and Hierro, and which I cited as

rather aberrant individuals of the Madeiran M. echi, are

more in reality than a somewhat large variety of the

M. seniculus (=tristis, mihi, nec Sturm); at any rate

the only specimen to which I now have access belongs

manifestly to that species: and if this should prove to be

the case, it will follow that the M. echii has been observed

hitherto only in Madeira.

I may just state, however, that the typical M. echii

(which occurs on the flowers and woolly foliage of the

gigantic H. candicans of intermediate elevations, in the

Madeiran archipelago) is certainly distinct from the

(much smaller and darker-limbed) M. seniculus ; so that

the note at p. 111 of my ‘Col. Atl”, which calls this

point in question, requires to be qualified.

(Sp. 312) Meligethes tristis.

According to Mr. Rye this Meligethes is not the tristis,

of Sturm, as I have hitherto imagined, but Hrichson’s

seniculus—a species equally European in its range.

Whether however it is attached to plants of the Hehiuwm

group in the Atlantic islands, as it would appear to be in

more northern countries, I am unable to say; though

perhaps, on enquiry, this will be found to be the case.

“The true tristis,’ Mr. Rye observes, “‘is more ovate and

less depressed than the seniculus, as also broader, darker,

and with less and lighter pubescence; its prothorax, too,

is more contracted in front, its hinder tibize are wider,

and the anterior ones are a trifle narrower.” Mr. Crotch

was evidently mistaken when, recording (Proc. Zool. Soc.

Lond. 371; 1867) the M. incanus from the Azores (on the

strength of a single individual taken in Fayal), he re-

marked that “the M. tristis of Mr. Wollaston’s work

must probably be referred to it [%.e., to the incanus].”

Whatsoever Mr. Crotch’s insect may be, the Madeiran

and Canarian one at all events is totally distinct from the

European M. incanus—which is very like the wmbrosus,

but not so broad, most densely punctured, with its legs

picescent, and its anterior tibize considerably dilated to-

wards the apex—where there are three pretty conspicuous

teeth externally. The corrected synonymy, therefore, of

the species will stand thus :—

Atlantic Coleoptera. 237

Meligethes seniculus.

Meligethes seniculus, Erich., Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. iii.

192 (1845). Meligethes tristis, Woll. [nec Sturm.], Ins.

Mad. 124 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 41 (1857); Id.,

Cat. Can. Col. 113 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 111 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto., Des.), et Canar-

iensis (Can., Ten., Gom., Palma, Hierro); ad flores vul-

garis.

(Sp. 313) Meligethes picipes.

This Meligethes appears to be correctly identified with

the European M. picipes, according to Mr. Rye—who

however observes that the Madeiran examples are, on the

average, a trifle larger than the ordinary British ones.

(Sp. 314) Meligethes virescens.

Mr. Rye informs me that this Canarian Meligethes (like

the Madeiran M. echii) 1s quite unknown to him; and in

all probability, therefore, it is not a Huropean species.

(Sp. 315) Meligethes varicollis.

Concerning the Canarian form which I cited as a

‘var. 8” of this Madeiran Meligethes I have always had

considerable doubt, though my desire not to multiply

species unnecessarily induced me to register it as im all

probability a geographical phasis of the latter. Yeta

re-examination of the two, added to the decidedly-ex-

pressed opinion of Mr. Rye that they must be truly dis-

tinct, inclines me to correct what I feel now would

almost certainly be regarded as a mistake by any Coleop-

terist who may have made this group his particular

study; and in order therefore to point out the discrepan-

cies between them, I think it will be desirable, whilst

enunciating the Canarian species as a new one, to give

also an emended diagnosis of the M. varicollis—its already

described Madeiran ally.

Meligethes varicollis.

M. ovato-oblongus, convexus, aut sneo- aut cya-

neo-viridis, grosse fulvo-cinereo pubescens, densissime

238 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

punctatus; prothorace latiusculo; antennis pedibusque

ferrugineis ; tibiis anticis latis, extus minute sed sub-

inzequaliter serratis.

Var. 8. [ansexualis distinctio ? |—prothoracis lateribus,

antennis pedibusque testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. 14.

Meligethes varicollis, Woll., Ins. Mad. 126 (1854); Id.,

Cat. Mad. Col. 41 (1857); (pars) ; Id., Col. Atl. 112

(1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad); ad flores im sylvaticis

intermediis, rarissimus.

An exceedingly rare Meligethes, being confined so far

as I have hitherto observed to the intermediate sylvan

districts of Madeira proper—where I have taken it,

during the summer months, at the Ribeiro Frio and else-

where.

Meligethes Ryei, n. sp.

M. ovato-oblongus, convexus, eneo-viridis, fulvo-

cinereo pubescens, dense et profunde punctatus ; antennis

pedibusque ferrugineis; tibiis anticis latis, extus sat

grosse sed ineequaliter serratis.

Long. corp. lin. 1.

Meligethes varicollis, (pars), Woll., Cat. Can. Col. 112

(1864); (pars) ; Id., Col. Atl. 112 (1865). Meligethes

erythropa, Hart. [nee Mshm.], Geolog. v. Lanz. und Fuert.

140.

Hab.—Canarienses (Lanz., Fuert., Ten.) ; hinc inde

ad flores, haud infrequens.

Obs.—Speciei preecedenti affinis, sed differt praecipue

corpore profundius ac paulo minus dense punctato et pube

sub-breviore sericato, prothorace (nisi fallor) semper

concolori, ad latera sensim minus rotundato, quare angulis

posticis paulo minus obtusis, antennis sublongioribus,

necnon tibiis anticis extus (conspicue) grossius ac magis

ineequaliter serratis.

Species in honorem EH. C. Rye, inter Hntomologicos Bri-

tannicos longe lateque celebris, ob gratis amicissime oblatas

dicata.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 239

As I have already stated elsewhere, this fine Meligethes

is far from uncommon in the two eastern islands (Lanza-

rote and Fuerteventura) of the Canarian Group, but so

far as I have observed hitherto it seems to be scarcer in

the more western parts of the archipelago: nevertheless

I have met with it sparingly in Teneriffe. Although

with much the same brassy-green hue and pallid limbs

as its Madeiran ally (the M. varicollis) , it differs in being

much more coarsely, and rather less closely, punctured

than thatinsect, and clothed with arather shorter sericeous

pubescence; its prothorax (which is a trifle less rounded

at the sides, and with consequently the hinder angles

somewhat less obtuse) is apparently always concolorous

(never being diluted in hue towards either external edge);

its antenne are appreciably shorter; and the outer edge

of its anterior tibie are more powerfully (though un-

equally) serrate.

Fam. MONOTOMIDAA.

p. 118 (genus Monoroma).

Motschoulsky has lately informed us (vide Bull. Mosc.

196; 1869) that he considers Lacordaire was mistaken

in citing oniy three joints for the tarsi, and ten for the

antennz, in Monotoma, and in consequence placing

it amongst the Latridiide ; for, in point of fact, the feet

are tetramerous and the antenne (as he asserts) com-

posed of eleven articulations: and he argues therefore

that, both in structure and habit, it belongs more properly

to the Colydiens “a cété des Pycnomérides.” Although

I believe that Motschoulsky is incorrect as regards the

antenne, which seem to me to have but ten joints (the

terminal one being completely lost, or swallowed-up,

within the apex of the one-articulated club), he is

evidently right about the tarsi; and the conclusion which

he comes to about the affinities is exactly the same as I

had myself arrived at twelve years before (vide Cat. Mad.

Col. 67) , though I did not so far deviate from the usually-

received opinion as actually to place the genus amongst

the Colydiade. In my ‘ Canarian Catalogue’ however,

in 1864, I made the alteration, and during the following

year adopted the same position in my ‘ Coleoptera Atlan-

tidum’—though assigning it to a separate family, instead

of to the Endophleeideous section of the Colydiade.

240 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Fam. ENDOPHL@IDA.

p. 120 (genus Tarpuivs).

After species 338, add :—

Tarphius lutulentus, n. sp.

T. subcylindrico-oblongus, subopacus, piceo-niger,

setulis brevissimis fulvescentibus parce obsitus ; protho-

race subquadrato (ad latera paululum subeequliter facile

rotundato) , vix canaliculato; elytris concoloribus, rugose

substriato-punctatis, fere simplicibus (¢. e., interstitiis

alternis vix etiam obsolete interrupto-elevatis) ; antennis

(breviusculis) pedibusque vel rufo-piceis, vel piceo-

ferrugineis; tarsis (nisi fallor) in utroque sexu simplici-

bus, similibus.

Long. corp. lin. 14-2.

Tarphius inornatus (pars), Woll., Cat. Mad. Col. 43

(1857) .

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); castaneta pinetaque in

montibus supra Funchal sita (preecipue inter 1700’ et

2000’ s. m.) colens,—vel sub ligno humi jacente vel

sub cortice laxo emortuo, vulgaris.

Obs. —T. inornato (et spinipedi, olim.) plerumque paulo

minor angustior, vix minus rugose sculpturatus, et

setulis etiam sub-brevioribus (sc. brevissimis) obsitus,

prothorace antice subangustiore, elytrorum interstitiis

fere simplicibus (7. e., minus evidenter subelevatis),

antennis obsolete brevioribus, pedibus szpius paululum

minus obscuratis, necnon precipue (ut mihi videtur)

tarsis in utroque sexu simplicibus, nec in maribus subtus

spinosis.

When compiling my Madeiran Catalogue, in 1857, I felt

it necessary to unite the T’. inornatus and spinipes (both

of which had been published in the ‘ Ins. Mad.’) ,—further

material having convinced me that the type on which

I had established the latter was but a highly organized

male, in reality, of the former, in which the front feet

were quite as powerfully armed as the hinder ones; and

every opportunity for observation has since satisfied me

that I was correct, for the male tarsi of the inornatus are

eminently variable as to the exact amount of their deve-

lopment,—occasional examples having only the posterior

pair conspicuously spined, whilst in others (and indeed

Atlantic Coleoptera. 241

in most) the spinule is more or less decidedly expressed

in the anterior ones likewise. But whilst recording this

fact, I distinctly expressed my belief that perhaps two

species might nevertheless be concealed under the “ 7’.

tnornatus” as then limited,—seeing that all the specimens,

some thirty in number, which I had taken in the south

of Madeira (where they occur, for the most part, beneath

the bark and chippings of Spanish-chestnut trees and

Firs on the mountains above Funchal) were not only a

hittle smaller and narrower, but had their antenne just

perceptibly shorter, than those from the interior and

north of the island; whilst at the same time the still

more remarkable circumstance remained that the whole

of these southern individuals (so far at least as the mere

fact of their feet being simple enabled me to judge)

appeared to be females !

Now it is this particular form (from the mountain-

slopes in the south of the island), which appears to have

its feet simple in both sexes, and which I admitted re-

luctantly into my emended diagnosis of the inornatus in

1857, that I have enunciated above under the title of

lutulentus ; and I will distinctly state that were it not for

the apparent similarity of the male and female tarsi, I should

scarcely perhaps have regarded it even now as more than

a small and depauperated variety of that species. Yet

the fact (if true) is so structurally important that I can-

not but lay greater stress, in consequence, upon certain

other minute characters which per se I might have looked

upon as insignificant—even though they are sometimes so

faintly appreciable that specimens are with difficulty

separated from female ones of the inornatus. Indeed

(apart from its feet) the lutulentus would seem mainly to

differ from the inornatus in being on the average a little

smaller and narrower (its length ranging from 14 to 2

lines, whereas that of the latter ranges from 2 lines to

24), a trifle less coarsely sculptured, and beset with, if

possible, even shorter setze still, in its prothorax being

just appreciably (in proportion) less widened in front, in

its alternate elytral interstices having a still less tendency

to be obsoletely raised and interrupted (being, in point

of fact, almost simple), and in its antennz being if any-

thing a little shorter, and its legs usually somewhat less

darkened.

That the tarsal character however of the lutulentus is a

real one appears more than probable from the fact that

242 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

IT have lately examined 203 examples of it (taken during

the last winter and spring in the chestnut-woods at

‘the Mount,” above Funchal) without being able to dis-

cover a single individual which has even the slightest

tendency to a spiniform development about the feet, and

it is hardly likely that amongst such a mass of material

both sexes should not be represented,—more particularly

since in the case of the true inornatus (found in the more

central and northern districts of the island) the males

and females are numerically in about equal proportions.

And indeed if we further take into account the imdivi-

duals which I overhauled a few years ago, I must have

seen, at the very lowest computation, 250 of them, and

have yet been unable to detect any trace of the particular

structure which is so conspicuous in the inornatus, and

which we have been now considering.

(Sp. 348) Larphius Wolffir.

The excessive difficulty attending the determination of

some of the Tarphii, and (above all) the separating of

the sexes in certain of the unarmed species, must be my

excuse for feeling compelled to suppress the present one

—which was founded in 1865 on two Madeiran examples

which were taken by Dr. C. Wolff in the chestnut-plan-

tations at “the Mount,’ aboye Funchal. Even now,

however, I cannot but acknowledge the very great prima

facie difference which exists between small and compara-

tively un-nodose specimens (such as those from which

my diagnosis of the 7’. Woljii was drawn out) and the

much larger and more roughened ones which seem

nevertheless to merge gradually into the others, and

which represent the species which I described (from a

unique individual, in 1854) under the title of rugosus.

Yet remembering how greatly the sexes in many of the

forms recede from each other, both in size and develop-

ment of their elytral callosities, I have little doubt (after

a careful inspection of fifty individuals which were taken

at “the Mount” during the past winter and spring) that

the smaller ones, in which the lumps are less elevated

(though usually more rufescent), and which constitute

my I’. Wolffii, are merely the (unarmed) males of the

larger and rougher ones; and I would therefore sink the

T. Woljjic as a synonym of the previously-enunciated 1’.

rugosus,—believing that all future observations will tend

Atlantic Coleoptera. 243

equally to necessitate that step.* I may just state,

however, that without a sufficient series to judge from it

is highly probable that collectors will hereafter be found,

from time to time, who perhaps may feel inclined to

reinstate the 7’. Wolfii as distinct; yet 1 nevertheless

cannot see how any line of specific demarcation is to be

drawn between any of the examples now before me,—

even though some of them may have their prothorax a

little more widened before the middle than others, and

present at first sight a somewhat different aspect. The

greater or less rufescence of the callosities however is in

reality more apparent than real, and depends upon the

amount of scales and sete with which they happen to be

clothed,—for even the most concolorous individuals when

denuded of the latter will be seen to have their elytra

obscurely maculated.

Apart from all other points of similarity, the compara-

tively brown hue and oblong-squarish, posteriorly trun-

cated outline, and densely scaly surface of the whole of

my fifty examples give a character to the 7’. rugosus, in

all its phases, which when once seen it is impossible to

mistake. The following, I may add, is the corrected

synonymy of the species as now elucidated :—

(Sp. 854) Tarphius rugosus.

Tarphius rugosus, Woll., Ins. Mad. 144 (1854) ; Id.,

Cat. Mad. Col. 48 (1857); Id., Col. Atl. 124 (1865) ;

Tarphius Wolff, Id., Ibid. 123 et App. 21 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; in castanetis longe supra

urbem Funchalensem, precipue inter 1700’ et 2000°

S. m., parce occurens. fT

* Considering how closely allied to the T. truncatus I regarded the T.

Wolfiii, when I had an opportunity (in 1865) of comparing the latter with

my original types now in the British Museum, it may yet be open to

inquiry whether the truncatus also should not be treated eventually as a

variety, or state, of the rugosus.

+ Before dismissing the Madeiran Tarphii I may just call attention to

the fact that, during a two months’ residence on the mountains above

Funchal—in January, February, and March of 1870—we met with the

T. Wutulentus and nodosus in profusion, as well as, though less abundantly,

the rugosws and compactus; and the same district produced a few ex-

amples of the very rare and interesting T. angustuius. A little later in

the season a sojourn of two months at 8. Antonio da Serra, on the

mountains in the east of the island, afforded us the T. echinatus—a

24.4 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

p. 128 (genus ProsTHEca).

(Sp. 369) Prostheca aspera.

Hitherto this interesting little insect has been known

only from the single example which was captured, about

ten years ago, by the late Mr. Bewicke, at the Quinta da

Palmeira, above Funchal; and I was glad, therefore,

during our late sojourn in Madeira, to meet with a

second. It was taken from beneath the loosened bark

of a felled tree in the garden of the Quinta dos Jasmi-

neiros, on the western outskirts of Funchal; so that I

was probably mistaken in my conjecture (vide Col. Atl.

128) that the species would be found to be of Huphorbia-

infesting habits.

Fam. CUCUJIDAi.

p. 131 (genus LzmoprHievs).

After species 379, add :—

Lemophleus suffusus, n. sp.

L. linearis, depressus, subopacus, sericeo-pubescens,

ferrugineus sed in elytris (humeris exceptis) obscuriori-

bus; capite prothoraceque grosse sed haud dense punc-

tatis, illo vix canaliculato, fronte a clypeo (antice recte

truncato) haud divisa, oculis prominentibus, hoc longius-

culo postice angustiore angulis posticis fere subrotundatis ;

coleopteris argute tenuiter striatis, strid sublaterali costi-

formi; antennis brevibus, robustis, submoniliformibus.

Long. corp. lin. 1.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); exemplar unicum olim cepit

Dom. Bewicke.

Obs.—Lemophleus colore subobscuro elytris (humeris

exceptis) paulo obscurioribus necnon antennis brevibus

robustis moniliformibus S. awillari affinis, sed paulo minor,

sub-brevior, evidenter minus angustatus, magis depressus

species, although generally scarce, universal throughout that particular

region; the T. lawri and nodosus in considerable numbers, the compactus

and tmornatus, both of them more sparingly, the minute 7’. Lowei, abun-

dant (in company with the Acalles Wollastoni) amongst lichen on the

trunks of various trees, the small, rounded T. sylvicola, by sifting fallen

leaves and sticks at an elevation of about from 3000 to 4000 feet, the T.

rotundatus, though not commonly, two examples of the rare and elegant

T. formosus, and one of the equally scarce 7’. angustulus.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 245

ac magis sericeo-pubescens, labro (ut mihi videtur) bre-

viore, oculis magis prominentibus, capite prothoraceque

argutius punctatis sed minus rugosis, hoc (fere ut in

LL. clavicolli) postice angustiore, necnon coleopteris magis

regulariter argutiusque striatis et (nisi fallor) cost’ unica,

sc. sublaterali, utrinque solum instructis.

The single example from which the above diagnosis has

been compiled was taken in Madeira by the late Mr.

Bewicke, but whether near Funchal or in some more

remote part of the island I have now no means of ascer-

taining. In its robust, abbreviated, submoniliform an-

tennz and rather dark ferruginous hue, the elytra with

the exception of the shoulders being of a still obscurer

tint, it resembles the L. axillaris ; nevertheless it appears

to be a trifle smaller, and relatively a little shorter and

broader than that species, and it is hkewise rather flatter

and more thickly clothed with a coarser sericeous pubes-

cence ; its eyes also are more prominent, its upper lip

appears to me (judging from the only type to which I

have access) to be decidedly shorter, its head and pro-

thorax (the latter of which is narrower behind, as in the

DL. clavicollis) are more distinctly punctured but less

rugose, and its elytra are more uniformly and regularly

(although delicately) striate, and seem to have only a

single raised costa, namely a sublateral one, down each,

p. 1385 (genus Sinvanvs).

(Sp. 387) Silvanus wnidentatus.

For this Silvanus, instead of “ unidentatus, Oliv.,” read

bidentatus, Fab. A more critical examination of it has

convinced me that it should be referred to the latter of

those species, rather than (as I had concluded) to the

former. And Imay add that the S. bidentatus differs from

the wnidentatus in being a little larger and more coarsely

sculptured, in its limbs being proportionately a trifle

longer and its eyes more developed, and in its prothorax

(which is more evidently bisulcate down the disc) being

a little more sinuate, or less straightened, at. the sides,

with the anterior angles a good deal more produced, and

even the basal ones just appreciably more prominent—

so as to occasion the prothorax to appear, relatively, a

trifle less narrow behind. During our late sojourn in

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1871.—ParT II. (MAY.) S

246 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Madeira we took the S. bidentatus in profusion, from

beneath the dead bark of Spanish-chestnut trees, at “ the

Mount ”?—about 1700 feet above Funchal, the same

locality in which the late Mr. Bewicke met with it

(though more sparingly) a few years ago. The follow-

ing entry into the catalogue will suffice to place on record

the corrected synonymy of the species :—

Silvanus bidentatus.

Dermestes bidentatus, Fab., Ent. Syst. 1. 233 (1792).

Silvanus unidentatus, Woll. [nec Oliv. 1790], Cat. Mad.

Col. 538 (1857); Id., Col. Atl. 1385 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in castanetis editioribus

longe supra Funchal, sub cortice laxo emortuo, vulgaris.

Fam. CRYPTOPHAGIDA.

p. 136 (genus CrypropHAGus).

(Sp. 890) Cryptophagus saginatus.

Until our recent sojourn in Madeira I had seen but two

examples of this common European Cryptophagus (taken

by the late Mr. Bewicke near Funchal) from any of these

Atlantic islands; but whilst residing at 8. Antonio da

Serra, in the spring of 1870, we met with it abundantly,

amongst decayed corn and refuse, in a granary adjoining

the house in which we were living. In all probability,

therefore, the species has become thoroughly established

at Madeira,—having doubtless been introduced originally

from some more northern country.

After this species (No. 390), add :—

Oryptophagus pilosus.

C. subovali-oblongus, leviter convexus, ferrugineus,

pube longiuscula depressi dense vestitus, grosse punc-

tatus; prothorace ad latera paululum subzqualiter

rotundato, crenulato, angulis posticis argute determi-

natis sed paulo obtusis, dente anteriore retrorsum acuto,

posteriore in medio sito.

Long. corp. lin. 1-14.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 247

Cryptophagus pilosus, Gyll., Ins. Suec. iv. 287 (1827) ;

Sturm, Deutsch. Fna. xvi. 64, t. 313, f. A (1845) ; Erich.,

Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. ii. 352 (1846).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in granario quodam ad

S. Ant. da Serra, tempore vernali 1870, sat copiose re-

pertus.

A considerable number of examples of this EKuropean

Oryptophagus were taken by my wife and myself at 8.

Antonio da Serra, during our late sojourn in Madeira,—

amongst rotten corn and refuse, in company not only

with the preceding species but also with the C. affinis

and dentatus. Like other insects of similar habits, it has

doubtless become naturalized in the island from more

northern latitudes.

Fam. LATRIDIADAK.

p. 148 (genus Corticarta).

Motschoulsky having, in his recent enumeration of such

members of this genus as were known to him (vide Bull.

Mosc. 1867), cited no less than four Madeiran Corticaric

which he assumed to be new, I have examined his short

diagnosis with considerable care, and cannot feel justified

in admitting more than one of them as indicating a

genuine addition to the catalogue. Even that ‘ one”

indeed has so much the prima facie aspect of the C. fulva

(with which it is, for the most part, found in company)

that I had until now overlooked it amongst supposed

examples of that somewhat variable species ; but I think

nevertheless that it may be regarded as distinct, and [

will therefore give a brief description of it (under

Motschoulsky’s name of ciliata),—adding at the same time

an emended one of what I believe to be the true C. fulva,

in order to point out more exactly the characteristic

features of the two. Of the three other Motschoulskian

species I suspect that two (attenuata and unicarinulata)

were founded upon small, accidental varieties, or states,

of the ciliata, whilst the remaining one (fluvifrons) may

perhaps represent a mere immature individual of my

previously-enunciated O. inconspicua—of the existence

of which he does seem to have been aware. Until further

evidence has been adduced I prefer to dispose thus of at

any rate three out of the four supposed “species” of

g 2,

248 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Motschoulsky,—being unwilling to burden the Atlantic

list with (to say the least) exceedingly doubtful addi-

tions in this rather obscure and insignificant group, and

because his diagnoses appear to me fully to warrant the

conclusions at which I have arrived.

If we except the C. crenicollis, which I admitted into

the catalogue in 1854 on the evidence afforded by a

single and somewhat unsatisfactory individual which was

identified with that species about twenty years ago by

Motschoulsky, and which (in the absence of the specimen

itself for a re-examination) I cannot but suspect may per-

haps prove to be but an accidental variety of the C. fulva

(as now separated from the ciliata), the Madeiran Corti-

carie, so far as I am acquainted with them, are remark-

ably well-defined, and (1 will further add) may be cited

in the following order :—

A. Prothorax ad latera crenulatus.—pubescens, Gyll.;

ciliata, Mots.; fulva, Mann.; (?) ecrenicollis, Mann. ; ma-

culosa, Woll.; fagi, Woll.; serrata, Payk ; inconspicua,

Woll.

B. Prothorax ad latera vel omnino vel fere simplex.—

transversalis, Gyll.; rotundicollis, Woll.; curta, Woll.

p. 148. After species 422, add :—

Corticaria ciliata.

C. ovali-oblonga, convexa, subnitida, aut rufo- aut fusco-

testacea (antennis pedibusque paulo dilutioribus), longe

tulvo-pilosa; capite prothoraceque grosse punctatis, hoc

transverso, ad latera rugose crenulato, pone discum fovea

media rotundata sed haud profunda impresso; elytris

paulo ventricosis, profunde sed subconfuse substriato-

punctatis, interstitiis obsoletissime subconvexis.

Long. corp. lin. 3-1.

Corticaria fulva, (pars), Woll. [nec Mann. 1844], Ins.

Mad. 185 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 65 (1857); Id.,

Col. Atl. 148 (1865). Corticaria ciliata, Mots., Bull. Mosc.

55 (1867). Corticaria attenuata,? Mots., Ibid. 67 (1867)

—status minor? Corticaria unicarinulata, ? Mots., Ibid.

76 (1867)—status minor ?

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); domos in ipsi urbe Fun-

chalensi preecipue colens ; forsan ex alienis introducta.

Atlantic SEE: 249

Obs.—Species a sequenti (i. é., nisi fallor, C. fulva,

Mann.) parum distincta ; differt corpore paulo convexiore

et magis ovali (sc. sensim minus oblongo), necnon, pre-

sertim in capite prothoraceque, grossius punctato, et pilis

etiam sublongioribus obsito ; pr othorax magis transversus

fovea media magis rotundata et paulo minus profunda

impressus, elytra quoque sensim magis ventricosa.

Amongst the Madeiran specimens which [have hitherto,

from time to time, assigned to the Huropean C. fulva a

certain number are more strongly punctured than the

rest, and seem to differ also in a few other distinctive

characters; and I have little doubt that they represent

the particular form (perhaps a truly specific one) which

Motschoulsky described, three years ago, under the title

of ciliata. It is equally common, with what I believe to

be the true fulva, in the houses of Fulchal,—the two

species, which much resemble each other at first sight,

being usually met with together; and both have doubt-

less been naturalized from some more northern country.

The C. ciliata (if rightly understood, and identified, by

me) may be known from the fulva in being a trifle more

oval and convex (the prothorax being a little wider and

more developed, and the elytra somewhat rounder and

more ventricose), and clothed with perhaps even a still

longer fulvescent pile, in its head and prothorax being

much more coarsely punctured, aud in the fovea with

which the latter is impressed behind being appreciably

shallower, as well as a trifle smaller and more rounded.

Its colour, too, although often quite as pale as that of

what I believe to be the fulva, is more frequently of a

shehtly darker tnt—being generally brownish testaceous.

The C. attenuata and unicarinulata, of Motschoulsky,

judging from their diagnoses, might well have been

erected on accidentally small examples of this species ;

indeed I possess a specimen, undoubtedly conspecific

with the rest, which answers almost exactly to his descrip-

tion of the former, and nearly as well with that of the

latter; and until further evidence therefore shall prove

the contrary, 1 must regard them both as referable to

the ciliata.

(Sp. 425) Corticaria fulva.

C. oblonga, subnitida, rufo-testacea (antennis pedibus-

que paulo dilutioribus), longe fulvo-pilosa; capite pro-

250 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

thoraceque alutaceis et leviter punctatis, hoc subquadrato-

cordato, ad latera rugose crenulato, pone discum fovea

media magni profunda transverso-rotundata impresso ;

elytris subrugulose substriato-punctatis.

Long. corp. lin. 3-1.

Latridius fulvus (Chevr.), Villa, Cat. Col. Hur. 45

(1833). Corticaria fulva, Mann.,in Germ. Zeitsch. v. 42

(1844); (pars), Woll., Ins. Mad. 185 (1854); Id., Cat.

Mad. Col. 65 (1857); Id., Cat. Can. Col. 146 (1864); Id.,

Col. Atl. 148 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); et Canariensis? (Lanz., ?

Ten. ?); praecipue in domibus, una cum specie prece-

denti, degens.

As already stated, the present species (which I think

is correctly identified with the ordinary European C. ful-

va) differs from the preceding one in being a little less

convex and more strictly oblong (the elytra being rather

more straightened, or less rounded at the sides), and in

its sculpture being less coarse,—the head and prothorax

(the latter of which is narrower and more cordate, and

impressed with a somewhat larger, deeper, and a little

more transverse fovea on its hinder disc) being more

evidently alutaceous, and studded with comparatively

shallow punctures. It is common, in company with the

C. ciliata, in Madeira—where it may generally be found

crawling on the inner walls of the houses; and although

I have no access at the present moment to my late

Canarian types (which are now in the British Museum),

I believe that the ‘C0. fulva” recorded by me from Lan-

zarote and Teneriffe is referable to this species (7. e., to

what I regard as the true C. fulva), rather than to the

ciliata.

(Sp. 427) Corticaria inconspicua.

Judging from the short diagnosis in the Bulletin de

Moscou (p. 66, 1867), it seems highly probable to me

that the C. flavifrons of Motschoulsky was founded upon

an example (perhaps immature) of this insignificant little

Corticaria—so like at first sight (though certainly distinct

from) the common European C. serrata; and therefore

until further evidence has been adduced I prefer assign-

ing it to the C. inconspicua, rather than running the risk

Atlantic Coleoptera. 251

of multiplying “species” in a somewhat obscure group.

The OC. inconspicua is far from uncommon within the in-

habited districts of Madeira,—occurring generally in

houses and outhouses, and sometimes even under the

bark of trees, irrespective of elevation. I originally met

with it, in profusion, amongst bones and chippings of

wood, in asmall outhouse in Mr. Leacock’s garden at the

Quinta de Sio Jodo, near Funchal; and during our late

campaign we found it beneath the dead bark of Spanish-

chestnut trees at “the Mount,’ as well as at 8. Antonio

da Serra.

After species 427, add :—

Oorticaria transversalis.

C. elongato-ovata, nitidiuscula, piceo-brunnea (anten-

nis, clavi excepta, pedibusque piceo-testaceis), breviter

cinereo-pubescens ; capite profunde sed prothorace paulo

levius ac confuse punctatis, hoc angustulo, subcordato-

quadrato, versus angulos anticos obtuse rotundato,

angulis ipsissimis posticis minute subrectis, ad latera

integro (nec crenulato), pone medium late transversim

impresso (impressione maxima, sublunato-arcuati) ; ely-

tris substriato-punctatis (fere quasi-subcrenulatis).

Long. corp. lin. ?.

Latridius transversalis, Schiippel, in litt.; Gyll., Ins.

Suec. iv. 1383 (1827). Corticaria transversalis, Mann.,

Mon. 51 (1844).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; in montibus longe supra

Funchal, in horto quodam (inter quisquilias), semel de-

prehensa.

A single example of the common European C. trans-

versalis was taken by my wife (on the 6th of January,

1870) during our late sojourn in Madeira—namely,

amongst vegetable refuse, in the garden of the Quinta

do Prazer, at ‘‘the Mount,” above Funchal; and it is

not unlikely that the species may have become natural-

ized accidentally from more northern latitudes. If such

be the case, however, there can be no doubt that it is

extremely rare,—for, in spite of a subsequent residence

of two months on the actual spot where it was captured,

and the most careful collecting from day to day, we

252 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

failed to procure even a second. Apart from its dark-

brown hue and elongate-ovate outline, it may at once be

known from the other Madeiran Corticarie hitherto

brought to light by the broad transverse arcuated im-

pression which stretches completely across the hinder

region of its (rather narrowed) prothorax.

(Sp. 431) Corticaria tenella.

It would appear from the Baron Harold’s recent Cata-

logue that a Corticaria was published by Leconte (Proc.

Ac. Phil. 301) under the title of tenella in 18553 so that

the little Canarian species which I described in 1864 will,

in consequence, require anew name. I would therefore

propose for it that of delicatula (which seems to be un-

appropriated in this genus), and will cite its corrected

synonymy thus :—

Oorticaria delicatula.

Corticaria tenella, Woll. [nec Lec. 1855], Cat. Can. Col.

150 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 151 (1865).

Hab.—Canariensis (Can., Ten., Gom., Palma, Hierro) ;

: 5) ) 3 5)

passim.

p. 152 (genus Larrivivs).

It is somewhat remarkable that the British L. nodifer

should have escaped all former observations in the Atlan-

tic islands, for during our late sojourn at Madeira we met

with it in profusion throughout the entire district of

“the Mount” (from about 1600 to 1900 feet above Fun-

chal), and likewise in scarcely less abundance at 8. An-

tonio da Serra. It was obtained chiefly from amongst

garden-refuse, and by sifting, in cultivated spots; and I

think it far from unlikely therefore that the species has

become accidentally naturalized from some more northern

country. At any rate it is an interesting addition to the

catalogue, and all the more so since it has been recorded

by Mr. Crotch as having been taken likewise in 8. Miguel

and Fayal at the Azores. The following brief diagnosis

a suffice to inaugurate the species into the Madeiran

1st.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 253

Latridius nodifer.

L. elongato-ovatus, niger vel piceo-niger, valde in-

eequalis, subnitidus ; prothorace subquadrato-cordato, in

disco bicostato, necnon utrinque costa secunda flexuosa

(in medio evanescente, fracta) instructo; elytris grosse

striato-punctatis, interstitiis alternis plus minus inter-

rupte elevatis, interstitio 2do pone medium nodum

magnum efficiente, 4to magis costiformi ac magis elevato,

subflexuoso sed ante apicem subito terminato, 6to

(humerali) recto abbreviato, ante medium evanescente ;

antennis gracilibus pedibusque picescentioribus.

Long. corp. lin. 1.

Latridius nodifer, Westw., Int. to Ent. 1. 155, pl. 18,

f. 23 (1839); Steph., Man. Brit. Col. 129 (1889) ;

Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 375 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; inter quisquilias, preser-

tim in cultis intermediis, copiose occurrens.

After species 437, add :—

Latridius Watsoni, n. sp.

L. elongato-filiformis, pallidus, subopacus; capite

prothoraceque angustissimis, rufo-testaceis, dense punc-

tato-rugosis, illo elongato-quadrato, antice recto sat

prominulo, oculis minutis prominentibus, hoc obtriangu-

lari-cordato ; coleopteris parallo-ellipticis, dense et grosse

striato-punctatis, interstitiis 2do et submarginali alte

elevatis, costas duas integras utrinque efficientibus ;

antennis pedibusque gracilibus, testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. 3.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in domo quodam mox

supra urbem Funchalensem a Rev*e? Dom°® Watson parce

deprehensus, cujus in honorem nomen triviale proposui.

Four examples of this remarkable and most elegant

little Latridius have lately been detected by the Rev. W.

B. Watson, crawling on the inner walls of his house—

the Quinta do Valle—above Funchal; and I have much

pleasure in naming it after its captor, whose indefatigable

researches in various branches of natural science, espe-

cially conchology, are well known both in the island and

elsewhere. Its wholly testaceous hue and marvellously

254 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

narrowed outline (the elongate-quadrate head and sub-

cordate prothorax being narrower than in any Latridius

with which I am acquainted), in conjunction with its

minute eyes and parallel-elliptic elytra—which are

densely and coarsely striate-punctate, and have their

second interstice, as well as the submarginal one, elevated

into an unbroken costa extending from the base to the

extreme apex,—give it a character which it is impossible

to mistake. Its head and prothorax (the anterior portion

of the former, containing the mouth-organs, bemg much

developed and prominent) are greatly roughened, and

almost scabrose, and its limbs are slender.

The L. Watsont, like most of the Latridii, and other

insects of similar habits, is manifestly not truly indigenous

in Madeira; though it may very possibly have become

naturalized in some of the houses of Funchal. Indeed it

is far from unlikely that it was originally of even Ameri-

can origin, for there is an example of it in the collection

of the British Museum labelled as having been received

from Chili.

Fam. MYCETOPHAGIDL.

p- 156 (genus Symsiorzs).

(Sp. 447) Symbiotes pygmeus.

According to Tournier (Pet. Nouv. Ent. No. 3), who

professes to have seen Heer’s type, the Symbiotes pyg-

meeus 18 identical with the ‘* Hpurcea rubiginosa” of that

author; and of course, therefore, if this should prove to

be the case, the latter specific title (having been published

nine years before the other) would have the priority.

However I cannot but feel that there must be some mis-

take either on the part of M. Tournier, or else perhaps

in the accidental transposition of Prof. Heer’s types,—

for, in the first place, there is no species published by

Dr. Heer under the actual title of Hpurcea rubiginosa ;

Hrichson’s genus Hpurcea was not even established until

two years after the appearance of the ‘ Fauna Coleopte-

rorum Helvetica.’ There is a “ Nitidula rubiginosa,” it

is true, which I fully admit, from its position in the

genus, must in all probability be an Hpurea ; but it is

well-nigh incredible, judging from the diagnosis, that it

Atlantic Coleoptera. 255

can have anything whatever to do with the Mycetopha-

gideous genus Symbiotes,—Dr. Heer being far too acute

a Coleopterist ever to have permitted a totally dissimilar

form like the latter to be introduced amongst his ordinary

Nitidule, in the situation moreover which the following

specific sequence will show :—N. flexuosa, F., 10-guttata,

F., rubiginosa, Heer, silacea, Hbst., obsoleta, F. More-

over, apart from the description itself, the very size

given for the N. rubiginosa (namely a line and a quarter)

renders it quite inapplicable to the Symbiotes pygmaeus—

which measures from seven-eighths to (at utmost) one

line. Until therefore further evidence is adduced, I shall

refuse to believe that Heer’s insect and Hampe’s are even

congeneric,—so much more, therefore, conspecific.

Fam. HISTERIDA.

p- 168 (genus Saprinvs).

(Sp. 485) Saprinus ignobilis.

In the Appendix to the ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ I

called attention to the fact that De Marseul, without

stating the reason why, has changed (7 Abeille, 1. 853;

1864) the title of my Saprinus ignobilis into “ S. Wollas-

toni.” I think it sufficient just to mention this; though

until some explanation on his part be forthcoming |

cannot believe that the alteration is valid, not knowing

on what principle it has been made.

(Sp. 489) Saprinus nitidulus.

The name “ semistriatus”’ for this common and widely-

spread Saprinus (which has been cited, also, by Mr.

Crotch from the Azores) seems to have the precedence

over “nitidulus.” Hence its synonymy must be thus

corrected :—

Saprinus semistriatus.

Hister semistriatus, Hbst., Kif. iv. 306 (1791). Hister

nitidulus, Fab., Syst. Hleu. i. 85 (1801). Saprinus niti-

dulus, Woll., Ins. Mad. 215 (1854) ; Id., Cat. Mad. Col.

75 (1857) ; Id., Cat. Can. Col. 169 (1864); Id., Col. Atl.

171 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.), et Canarienses (Lanz., Can.,

Ten.) ; in cadayeribus, hinc inde abundans.

256 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Fam. APHODIADAL.

p. 179 (genus Oxyomts).

The two species which, in my ‘ Coleoptera Atlantidum ’

and previous publications, I regarded as Oxyomi have

been formed (along with many others), by the Baron

Harold (Col. Heft. 11. 100-1867), into a distinct group—

under the title of Atenius ; and consequently, since the

O. Heinekent has moreover heen identified by him with

the Scarabeus stercorator of Fabricius, they must for the

future be cited as follows :—

Atenius stercorator.

Scarabeeus stercorator, Fab., Spec. Ins. 1. 22 (1781) ;

Oliv., Ent. 1. 3-89, t. 17, f. 155 (1789). Oxyomus Heinec-

keni, Woll., Ins. Mad. 228 (1854). Oxyomus Heinekent,

Id., Cat. Mad. ‘Col... 79 (1857) 3 “Ud. (Col Ati no

(1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); sub putridis in inferioribus

occurrens.

Atenius brevicollis.

Oxyomus brevicollis, Woll., Ins. Mad. 229 (1854) ; Id.,

Cat. Mads Col: 79 (1857); Ids, Cat: CanseCols Toe

(1864) ; Id., Col. Atl. 179 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.), et Canarienses (Gom.,

Palma) ; passim.

Fam. MELOLONTHIDA.

It will be sufficient to state here that Blanchard, in his

‘Cat. de la Coll. Ent. du Mus. d’ Hist. Nat. de Paris,’

published in 1850, has described a member of the genus

Hoplia (under the name of H. Peronii) which is said to

have been brought [doubtless by M. Péron] from Tene-

riffe. I can do no more than allude to this fact, for I

have had so many instances forced upon my notice of

the almost incredible want of accuracy displayed by many

French entomologists as regards their professed habitats

that it is next to impossible not to suspect that perhaps

Atlantic Coleoptera. 257

some error may have occurred in the citation as ‘ Tene-

riffan” of the exponent of a group of which I have seen

no single representative throughout the numerous islands

of these scattered archipelagos. Is it possible that M.

Péron may have touched at some Mediterranean country,

or island, en route, and afterwards mixed-up unintention-

ally a portion of his collectanea from two distinct regions ?

Be this as it may, I will at any rate, without holding

myself responsible for the accuracy of the supposed

habitat, just cite the short diagnosis of M. Blanchard, in

order to call attention to the fact that a Hoplia (although

totally undetected during any of our recent campaigns)

may possibly be found to exist in the Canarian Group.

Hoplia Peronit.

“ F. aulica affinis, sed distincta, prothorace angustiore ;

: 5 a i eee —— :

elytris oblongioribus, leete viridi- squamosis, pedibus

tenuioribus, tibiarumque dente primo minore.”

Blanchard, loc. cit. 72 (1850).

Hab.—Canarienses ? (en. ?) ; mihi non obvia, sed a

Dom. Blanchard citata.

Fam. CETONIADAi.

The observations which I have just made with respect

to the Hoplia Peronit might be repeated here, for it

appears to be on precisely the same authority that M.

Blanchard has admitted into his Catalogue a T'richius

(under the title of 7’. Fortunatarum) which purports to

have come from Teneriffe. It is of course possible that

the genus may have a representative in the Canarian

archipelago, but I have certainly no other evidence of

its existence in any of the various islands of these widely-

scattered Atlantic Groups; and it is at least remarkable

that two such conspicuous forms as J'richius and Hoplia

should have escaped our combined researches during so

many campaigns, and that yet both of them should be

supplied by a single naturalist who appears to have

made a passing visit to Teneriffe. I must be excused

therefore, under the circumstances, if a slight suspicion

should involuntarily arise that there may perhaps have

been some unintentional mistake in M. Péron’s habitats ;

258 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

though as it is of course impossible to ascertain this for

certain, I will (as in the case of the Hoplia already

referred to) cite the diagnosis of M. Blanchard, while at

the same time recording my conviction that further evi-

dence is greatly needed in order to establish the species

as a truly Canarian one.

Trichius Fortunatarum.

«T, affinis precedentibus [sc. zonatus, Germ., abdomi-

nalis, Sch., et fasciatus, Linn.]; thorace depresso, fere

quadrato, denudato ; elytris aureis, sutura faciisque tribus

nigris, prima secundaque interruptis.

Du voyage de M. Péron.”

Blanchard, Liste des Cét. du Museum, 21 (1842) ; Id.,

Cat. Col. Ent. 47 (1850).

Hab.—Canarienses ? (Ten. ?) ; a Dom. Blanchard cita-

tus, sed mihi ignotus. Species dubia, a 7’. zonato,

Europe meridionalis Algerizque, teste cl. Harold, vix

distincta.

Fam. BUPRESTIDA.

p. 186 (genus AcmopERA).

(Sp. 533) Acmcodera ornata.

It would seem that there is a Fabrician Buprestid (of

which I was not aware) bearing the specific title “‘ ornata,”

which enters into this genus; and the Baron Harold

appears therefore to have proposed for my Fuerteventuran

Acmeodera the name of elegans instead. Hence, the

corrected synonymy will be as follows :—

Aecmceodera elegans.

Acmeodera ornata, Woll. [nec Fab.], Cat. Can. Col.

207 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 187 (1865). Acmeodera

elegans, Harold, Col. Heft. v. 223 (1869) ; Id., Cat. Col.

1410 (1869).

Hab.—Canarienses (Fuert.) ; semel deprehensa.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 259

Fam. MALACHIADA.

p-. 196 (genus Arratus) .

(Sp. 573) Attalus rugosus.

As in the case of the following species, a rather wider

range has been ascertained for the present Attalus than

what was indicated in the ‘ Coleoptera Atlantidum.’

Until recently it had been observed only on the low

sea-cliffs to the westward of Funchal; but during our

late sojourn in Madeira we met with it (in company. with

the Pecteropus rostratus), amongst flowers, on the Ponta

de Sio Lourenco; and I also perceive that a single

example of it has been mixed up with my series of the

Pecteropus rostratus which I collected in Porto Santo

about twenty years ago. Hence it would seem to have

much the same range, and habit, as that insect; for we

may expect that it will be found to occur (at an equally

low elevation) on the Desertas likewise. Apart from

minor differences, it may readily be known from the P.

maderensis, to which in outline and general aspect it is

much allied, and which is peculiar to the higher alti-

tudes of the Madeiran Group, by its more densely

roughened and less shining surface, as well as by its

flatter head, and by its slenderer and less pallid limbs.

The following brief entry will suffice to place on record

its more extended range—as lately ascertained.

Attalus rugosus.

Pecteropus rugosus, Woll., Ins. Mad. 249 (1854) ; Id.,

Cat. Mad. Col. 86 (1857). Attalus rugosus, Id., Col.

Atl. 202 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto.) ; ad flores in in-

ferioribus, praesertim juxta mare, sepe cum Pecteropo

ruguso degens.

p. 202 (genus Prcrerorvs).

(Sp. 574) Pecteropus rostratus.

In the ‘ Coleoptera Atlantidum’ I stated that this in-

sect has been observed only in Porto Santo, and on the

two southern Desertas; but during our late visit to

260 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Madeira we met with it, rather abundantly, on the 30th

of March, on the Ponta de Sao Lourenco-—the low rocky

promontory which stretches out, in the direction of the

Desertas, in the extreme east of that island. Hence there

is every reason to suspect that it will be found on the

northern Deserta likewise, and that the species is conse-

quently wniversal (on the sea-cliffs of a low elevation)

throughout the Madeiran Group. It is remarkable how-

ever that, so far as Madeira proper is concerned, the Sao

Loureng¢o promontory would appear to be its peculiar

habitat; a fact which affords another instance of the

curious affinity which that singular tongue of land pos-

sesses, not merely with the Desertas (from which it is

separated by a channel of only nine miles in breadth),

but even (and in a still more remarkable manner) with

the more remote island of Porto Santo. I have already

mentioned elsewhere that the Desertan examples are, on

the average, a trifle larger and more roughly sculptured

than those from Porto Santo, with their prothorax just

appreciably wider (or less laterally-compressed), and

with their tibiz more or less obscurely darkened; and

this state I regarded as a “var. 8,” treating the Porto-

Santan ones as typical. The specimens from Madeira

proper are, I find, almost similar to those from the

Desertas ; and, moreover, amongst my original series

from Porto Santo (collected in 1848 and 1850) there are

several, I now perceive, which belong to the same rugu-

lose form cited by me as the “var. 8;” though I am

not the less persuaded, on that account, that the two

states (although perhaps not so strictly ‘‘imsular” as I

had suspected) are but very slightly altered races of a

single rather variable type. Nevertheless, in order to

define their points of difference more exactly, and to place

on record the more extended range of the “var. 8,” I

will cite the species afresh as follows :—

Pecteropus rostratus.

status a (typicus).—Plerumque subminor, ac sensim

minus rugose sculpturatus, prothorace sub- -angustiore,

v.€., magis lateraliter compresso, pedibus seepius omnino

pallidis, [ins. Portus Sanctus. |

status @ (aberrans) floricola.—Plerumque submajor,

ac sensim magis rugose sculpturatus, prothorace paulu-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 261

lum minus angustato, 7. e., sensim minus lateraliter com-

presso, tibiis seepius plus minus evidenter obscurioribus.

[ins. Madera, Portus Sanctus, Deserta Grandis, et Deserta

Australis. |

Pecteropus rostratus, Woll., Ins. Mad. 250, tab. iv. f.

9 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 86 (1857); Id., Col. Atl.

202 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto., Des., Bugio); ad

flores in apricis minus elevatis, tempore vernali, hinc

inde vulgaris.

Fam. MELYRIDA.

p. 206 (genus DoticHosoma).

In a revision of the members of this group (Berl. Ent.

Zeit. 136-140; 1867) Kiesenwetter states that the D.

Hartungii, of the Canarian archipelago, will fall under

his subgenus Dolichophron ; and that the Madeiran and

Mediterranean ‘ Dasytes illustris”? (usually cited, also,

as a Dolichosoma), will enter the subgenus to which he

has applied the name of Psilothriz. This latter species I

may add, occurs also on the Great Salvage,—an example

having lately been detected by myself in a bottle of

Coleoptera which had been obtained by the Baron Paiva

from that remote island.

Fam. ANOBIADAI.

p- 225 (genus ANoBium).

(Sp. 641) Anobiwm striatum.

It would appear that this common, widely-diffused

Anobium must be cited as the “ domesticum, Fourcr.,”

that name having the priority over Olivier’s “ striatum.’

fo)

Hence its synonymy should be thus cited :—

Anobium domesticum.

Anobium domesticum, Fourcr., Ent. Par. i. 26 (1785),

Anobium striatum, Oliv., Ent. ii. 16°9(1790); Woll., Ins.

Mad. 278 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 92 (1857) ; Id.,

Cat. Can. Col. 250 (1864) ; Id., Col. Atl. 227 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Des.), et Canarienses (Ten.,

Gom., Palma) ; late sed parce diffusum.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—parT i. (MAY.) us

262 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

After species 644, add :—

Anobium nitidulum, n. sp.

A. cylindricum, rufo-ferrugineum, nitidulum, grosse

eriseo-pubescens, et parce (sed in prothorace paulo

densius) granulatum, aut forsan asperato -punctulatum.

A. molli similimum, sed paululum minor, clarius rufes-

cens, nitidior, minus dense et minus rugose granulatum,

et pube sensim longiore ac robustiore vestitum.

Long. corp. lin. 1$—2.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); a Dom. Anderson haud

longe ab urbe Funchalensi, sc. ad Sanctum Antonium,

inter pinos, olim captum.

Several examples of an Anobiwm, which were taken in

Madeira by the late Mr. F. A. Anderson (namely at 8.

Antonio, near Funchal), have long been placed aside by

me, unexamined, as in all probability small individuals

of the European A. molle—a species which occurs, also,

though sparingly, both in the Madeiran and Canarian

archipelagos. A more critical inspection, however, shows

them to be truly distinct; and I may add that Mr. Rye

is equally of opinion that they cannot be regarded as any

state, or variety, of the molle. They appear to differ

from the latter in being on the average a little smaller,

and of a clearer or more rufo-castaneous hue, in their

granules (or asperated punctules, if so regarded) bemg

more distant and minute, and in their surface being more

shining, and clothed with a coarser pubescence. Mr.

Rye has called my attention to an Anobium described by

Mulsant (Opusc. Ent. 13, Cah. 117; 1863), under the

name of consimile, which might possibly prove to be the

one which we are now considering; but since the author

says nothing about the manifest difference of sculpture

(as compared with the A. molle), and leaves equally

unnoticed its more shining and more coarsely pubescent

surface, it 1s scarcely possible to treat his insect as con-

specific with the Madeiran one.

Fam. TOMICIDA.

p. 236 (genus Tomicus).

(Sp. 665) Zomdcus nobilis.

This fine Canarian wood-borer is said by Ferrari (Berl.

Ent. Zeitsch. 254 ; 1868) to belong to the subgenus Cyr-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 263

totomicus; and he is further of opinion that it may possibly

be, in reality, but a large local form of the C. duplicatus,

Sahlb. (=rectangulus, Hichh., in litt.).

p. 239 (genus APHANARTHRUM).

In my definition of this genus (vide Ins. Mad. 292;

1854) I stated, unreservedly, the funiculus to be 3-arti-

culate; and it was not until seven years afterwards, when

compiling a paper on the “ Huphorbia-infesting Coleop-

tera of the Canary Islands,” for the ‘Trans. of the Ent.

Soc. of London,’ that a re-examination of several of the

antennee (carefully mounted in Canada Balsam) convinced

me that in reality only two joints were distinctly appre-

ciable,—although in one species (the Madeiran A. eu-

phorbie, from which my original diagnosis was drawn out)

I fancied that I could still trace a third, infinitesimal

articulation between the second one and the club: and

this led me to the conclusion that it would perhaps be

safer to regard the funiculus of Aphanarthrum as only

bi-articulate,—though, at the same time, adding the

qualification ‘‘ that in one species, at all events, there are

indications, beneath a high microscopic power, of what

may possibly be an additional jomt at the base of the

capitulum.” And I then remarked that “when thus

emended, the diagnosis will better accord with what is

likely to be observed ; whilst the fact of an extra joint

being faintly indicated in one of the exponents will leave

it an open question whether the funiculus may not in

reality be triarticulate, even though but two joints are

distinctly traceable in the various members of the group”

[vide Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 3rd ser., i. 165; 1861].

Under these circumstances it is satisfactory to notice

that Ferrari, in a paper published in the ‘Berliner Ent.

. Zeitsch. in 1868, came to much the same conclusion,—

remarking (p. 254) that the A. Jube, canariense, and

euphorbicee appeared to him to have a 2-jointed funiculus,

while in the luridus the funiculus seemed to be indis-

tinctly triarticulate.

Taking the above considerations into account, I cannot

altogether endorse the suspicion of Leconte (Trans. Am.

Ent. Soc. 11. 152) that the Hylastes pumilus of Manner-

heim, from Alaska, which forms the type of Eichhoff’s

genus Dolurgus (Berl. Ent. Zeitsch. 147 ; 1868), should

264 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

be referred to Aphanarthrum; for although Leconte

thinks that Hichhoff was mistaken in regarding the funi-

culus of Dolurgus as 4-jointed, believing it rather to be

triarticulate, the fact at least remains that at any rate

three joints must be thoroughly apparent (as indeed he

plainly affirms),—whereas in Aphanarthrum (as already

shown) it seems more probable that the funiculus is com-

posed of only two articulations.

p. 244 (genus Cryprurcus).

(Sp. 686) Crypturgus concolor.

Ferrari thinks it possible (vide Berl. Ent. Zeitsch. 254;

1868) that this may prove to be but a geographical form

of the European C. pusillus, Gyll.

Fam. HYLESINIDA.

p. 250 (genus Hytzastzs).

(Sp. 703) Hylastes trifolit.

This European Hylastes, which is locally rather abun-

dant in the intermediate elevations of Madeira (where it

would seem to be attached principally to the Genista sco-

paria, or common Broom), has been shown to be con-

specific with the obsewrus of Marsham. Its corrected

synonymy, therefore, will be as follows :—

Hylastes obscurus,

Ips obscurus, Mshm., Ent. Brit. 57 (1802). Hylesinus

trifolii, Miill., Journ. du Mont Tonnere (1803). Hylastes

irifolii, Woll., Ins. Mad. 304 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col.

99 (1857); Id., Col. Atl. 251 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); preecipue inter ramulos

emortuos Geniste scoparic, L., hinc inde in intermediis,

Fam. CURCULIONIDA.

p. 252 (genus Ruyncouvs).

(Sp. 706) Rhyncolus crassirostris.

In the Appendix to my ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ I

called attention to the fact that the title of crassirostris

Atlantic Coleoptera. 265

for this insect must be changed, that name having been

pre-occupied by Perris (in the ‘ Ann. de la Soc. Linn. de

Lyon,’ sér. 2, iv. 147) for a Rhyncolus from the south of

France; and, having therefore at the time proposed that

of pinipotens instead, the synonymy of the species will

stand as follows :

Rhyncolus pinipotens.

Rhynecolus crassirostris, Woll. [nee Perris], Trans. Ent.

Soc. Lond. v. 367, pl. 18, f. 3 (1861); Id., Cat. Can.

Col. 270 (1864) ; Id., Col. Atl. 252 (1865). Rhyncolus

pinipotens, Id., Col. Hesp. (Append.) 275 (1867).

Hab.—Canarienses (Can.); lignum antiquum Pini

canariensis in montibus parce destruens.

p- 259 (genus CavLorrvpis).

After species 726, add:—

Caulotrupis pyricollis, n. sp.

C. ellipticus, nigro-eneus (rarius eeneus), subnitidus ;

prothorace pyriformi-conico, fere impunctato (sc. punc-

tulis levissimis parce irrorato); elytris obsolete et

levissime subpunctulato- striatis, stris postice paulo

distinctioribus, antice evanescentibus; antennis brevius-

culis, ferrugineis, pedibus rufo-piceis.

Long. corp. lin. 14-2.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; sub cortice, truncis humi

jacentibus, lignoque recenter secto, in castanetis longe

supra urbem Funchalensem (presertim imter 1600’ et

2000’ s. m.), vulgaris.

Obs.—Species C. conicolli affinis, sed nisi fallor dis-

tincta ; differt corpore plus minus evidenter angustiore

aut magis oblongo-elliptico (nec obpyriformi), necnon

minus enescenti minusque nitido, prothorace sublongiore,

subampliore, minus argute conico, elytris postice minus

striato-ineequalibus.

I cannot feel altogether certain that this Cawlotrupis is

more than an extreme variety, or race, of the C. conicollis,

—for the Caulotrupides appear to be eminently hable to

slight alterations, both in outline and sculpture, accord-

ing to the exact locality in which they severally occur.

266 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Nevertheless since the present one, which abounds

throughout the region of “the Mount” (from about 1700

to 2000 feet above Funchal), has very decided characters

to separate it from at any rate the typical C. conicollis, I

think it better, in spite of a few rather doubtful examples

which have elsewhere occurred (and which would seem

in some respects to be intermediate between the two), to

treat it as distinct. In that particular district it often

swarms beneath chippings of wood, and under logs and

planks, and never appears to be mixed-up with the true

conicollis—which occurs more especially towards the

eastern parts of the island, being tolerably common at 8.

Antonio da Serra and along the high sea-cliffs towards

the Brazen Head ; yet this very fact, I am aware, might

tend to imply that it is but a modification, or race, pecu-

liar to the mountain slopes above Funchal. Be this how-

ever as it may (for it seems next to impossible to decide

for certain), the C. pyricollis may be said to differ from

the conicollis in being a little narrower and more oblong

(the elytra being less expanded in the middle, and there-

fore the whole outline less pear-shaped or broadly-elliptic) ,

in its prothorax being a trifle wider and more developed

(being perhaps somewhat less strictly conical), in its

elytra being more even behind (where there is less appear-

ance of the inequalities occasioned by the anteriorly-

evanescent sulcate striz), and in its entire surface being,

on the average, a little darker, less shining, and less

brassy. Still, considering the variations which the mem-

bers of this genus are apt to undergo in the different

districts in which they are found, I would desire to record

at any rate my doubt as to whether the C. pyriformis is

ae in reality than an extreme modification of the coni-

collis.

p-. 265 (genus NANopuHyss).

(Sp. 738) Nanophyes longulus.

It would appear, according to Brisout de Barneville

(LP? Abeille, vi.), that this Canarian Nanophyes is con-

specific with the N. Chevriert, Boh., from southern and

south-western Hurope, and perhaps also with the

(previously-described) N. nitidulus of Gyllenhal. Pos-

sessing no type of these species, I cannot test the

conclusion for myself; but assuming the identification

to be correct, the emended synonymy will stand thus :—

Atlantic Coleoptera. 267

Nanophyes Chevrieri.

Nanophyes nitidulus? (Hoffm.), Gyll., in Schon. iv,

785 (1838). Nanophyes Chevrieri, Boh., in Schon. viii.

(pars 2) 193 (1845). Nanophyes longulus, Woll., Cat.

Can. Col. 299 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 265 (1865).

Hab.—Canarienses (Can., Ten.) ; super folia planta-

rum in herbidis intermediis humidiusculis, rarior.

p- 270 (genus ACALLEs).

While residing at S. Antonio da Serra, on the moun-

tains in the east of Madeira, during March, April, and

May of 1870, I had an opportunity of observing the habits

of at any rate four of the numerous species of <Acalles

peculiar to the island,—three of which may be said to be

universal throughout that particular district. The species

to which I refer are the terminalis, dispar, Wollastoni,

and globulipennis,—all of which occur amongst the lichen

which clothes the trunks and boughs of the trees, which,

from the general humidity of that cloudy region, attains

an unusual amount of development. The apple trees, on

account of the marvellously thick Cryptogamic envelope

of their branches and dead twigs, were more particularly

rich in the lichen-infesting forms; and in such situations

(accompanied by the equally common Yarphius Lowez)

the Acalles Wollastoni might be said almost to abound.

The A. globulipennis and terminalis were less plentiful,—

yet widely distributed, and by no means scarce; and at

a still higher altitude (perhaps from about 3000 to 4000

feet above the sea) the A. dispar, when searched for in

the proper situations, literally swarmed. This last was

usually to be met with congregating in the larger kinds

of lichen which are accustomed to hang in dense masses

from the gnarled trunks of the old laurels; and towards

the summit of the Pico Gordo the few trees which are

still remaining, amongst the thickets of the Vaccinium

maderense, were pretty sure, in every instance, when well

shaken into a net, to yield a liberal supply.

p. 284 (genus TorRNEUMA).

We are informed by Mr. G. R. Crotch (Pet. Nouv. Ent.

No. 12) that Fairmaire’s genus Crypharis, founded (Ann.

268 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

de la Soc. Ent. de France, 498) in 1868 for the reception

of a small blind Curculionid from Algeria and Sicily, is

identical with my Madeiran and Canarian Tornewma,—

his type however (CO. planidorsis) being specifically dis-

tinct from both of the Atlantic ones. I need scarcely

add, if this be the case, that the title of Torneuma, having

been proposed in 1860, has of course the priority.

p- 296 (genus Procas).

(Sp. 822) Procas picipes.

During our late sojourn in Madeira a single example of

this rare European Curculionid was captured by my wife

at “the Mount,” about 1700 feet above Funchal,—

making the third which has hitherto been recorded from

the Madeiran Group. Of the other two, the first was

found by the late Mr. F. A. Anderson, at a high elevation,

on the edges of the Great Curral, and the second by Mr.

Bewicke—in his garden at the Quinta da Palmeira.

p- 298 (genus Lixus).

(Sp. 829) Lnwus rufitarsis.

According to Desbrochers des Loges (Pet. Nouv. Ent.

No. 10), the European and Madeiran L. rufitarsis of

Schénherr’s work is in all probability a phasis of the

widely spread Fabrician LD. filiformis. Still, as this re-

quires corroboration, I shall not until further evidence

has been adduced disturb the present synonymy.

p- 304 (genus Hypera).

According to a late revision of the Hypérides by M. G.

Capiomont (Ann. de la Soc. Hnt. de France, vii. et vii. ;

1867-68), the species of this group which I cited in the

‘ Coleoptera Atlantidum’ enter more properly into the

genus Phytonomus, as there separated (and distinguished)

from Hypera proper; so that, for the future, they must

be corrected accordingly.

(Sp. 839) Hypera lunata.

_ This Phytonomus is said by M. Capiomont to be not spe-

cifically separable from the widely-spread P. fasciculatus ;

Atlantic Coleoptera. 269

but I cannot help thinking (as indeed I have long ago

expressed) that the form which obtains throughout the

Mediterranean region and the Atlantic islands (extend-

ing even to Egypt and Abyssinia), and which is a little

larger and differently marked, cannot be absolutely

identified with the one which occurs in sub-northern

Europe; and if therefore the latter be the true fascicu-

latus of Herbst, it follows that the other (which is

undoubtedly Olivier’s dauwei, and which I subsequently

described under the name lunatus) must be accepted as

distinct. * Under these circumstances, therefore, I will

not at present amalgamate them ; though the title under

which the species has hitherto been acknowleged by me

must be changed,—that of “‘ dauci” (which until lately

I was not aware had been actually published by Olivier)

having of course the priority.

As mentioned in my ‘ Coleoptera Atlantidum,’ the P.

lunatus (i. e. dauci) is universal throughout the Madeiran

and Canarian archipelagos —Gomera being the only

island in the two Groups on which it does not happen, as

yet, to have been observed ; nevertheless Capiomont, in

accordance with that strange want of precision as regards

habitat which is so characteristic of the French entomo-

logists, gives merely (for its Atlantic dissemination)

“Pile de Madére,”—thus ignoring altogether its Canarian

range ; and that too whilst citing the P. crroratus, which

is only Canarian, as found equally in ‘ Madeira!” Assum-

ing it therefore to be distinct from the typical fasciculatus

of Herbst, the emended synonymy of this Phytonomus

will be as follows :—

Phytonomus dauct.

Rhynchenus dauci, Oliv., Ent. v. 127, t. 35, f. 542

(1793). Phytonomus dauci, Brullé, in W. et B. (Col.)

72 (1838). Hypera lunata, Woll., Ins. Mad. 398 (1854) ;

Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 118 (1857); Id., Cat. Can. Col. 326

(1864); Id., Col. Atl. 304 (1865). Phytonomus fascicu-

latus (pars), Cap., loc. cit. 129 (1868).

* Even Capiomont himself remarks that ‘‘ En général, les fasciculatus

du nord de l’Europe sont plus foneés en couleur et plus petits que ceux

du midi, et surtout que ceux du nord de l'Afrique et de l’Asie occiden-

tale’? (loc. cit. 131). ;

270 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto., Des.), et Canari-

ensis (in Gom. sola haud observatus); sub lapidibus in

aridis, preesertim calcariis inferioribus, late diffusus.

(Sp. 840) Hypera trrorata.

While recording it properly as Canarian, M. Capiomont

(as just stated) misquotes this insect (loc. cit. 121) as

likewise Madetran, and even refers it (in general terms) to

the ‘Insecta Maderensia;’ though, of course, had he

taken the trouble to look into that volume he would have

seen at once that it was not contained there. ‘This how-

ever is but one instance out of many (alluded to, passim,

in my Canarian Catalogue and elsewhere), in which the

excessive inaccuracy of the French entomologists, as

regards habitats, is well-nigh incredible. The fact is,

that the P. wrroratus has been observed hitherto only in

Lanzarote and Fuerteventura—the two eastern islands of

the Canarian archipelago.

After allowing it to be truly distinct, M. Capiomont

then states that he believes, on re-consideration, that it is

a variety of the P. isabellinus—a species which is found

in Arabia, Egypt, and Algeria; but I suspect that in this

conjecture he is wrong,—for I compared the Lanzarotan

and Fuerteventuran insect very diligently with types of

the isabellinus, and pointed out in my Canarian Catalogue

(p. 327) the exact characters, one or two of them being

structural ones, in which it seemed to me to differ from

that species. Therefore, until further evidence has been

adduced, I certainly shall not refer the H. irroratus to the

isabellinus,

(Sp. 841) Hypera murina.

In my ‘Ins. Mad.’ and Madeiran Catalogue (published,

respectively, in 1854 and 1857) I treated the common

P. murinus and variabilis, however nearly related inter se,

as specifically distinct; but in 1865, when compiling the

‘Coleoptera Atlantidum,’ I had so thoroughly satisfied

myself (as I thought) that they merge imperceptibly

into each other that I made up my mind to regard them

as but phases of a single plastic form, and cited them

accordingly. Yet M. Capiomont, in his late revision of

the Hyperides, has expressed his conviction that, after

Atlantic Coleoptera. 271

all, they are not conspecific; so that, on the strength of

so high an authority, and so careful a monograph, I have

practically no choice left but to accept the conclusion at

which he has arrived, and to revert to my own opinion

as originally expressed. Without discussing their dis-

tinctive features afresh, I may add that, since both forms

(whether truly specific or not) do undoubtedly occur both

in the Madeiran and Canarian archipelagos, their cor-

rected synonymy may be thus tabulated, and the “ H.

murina”’ as defined in the ‘ Col. Atlant.’ consequently

cancelled.

Phytonomus murinus.

Curculio murinus, Fab., Ent. Syst. i., nu. 463 (1792).

Hypera murina, Woll., Ins. Mad. 399 (1854) ; Id., Cat.

Mad. Col. 118 (1857). Hypera variabilis (pars), Id.,

Cat. Can. Col. 328 (1864). Hypera murina (pars), Id.,

Col. Atl. 305 (1865). Phytonomus murinus, Cap., loc. cit.

199 (1868).

Hab.—Maderenses (in Ilheo Chao sola haud detectus) ,

et Canarienses (ins. omnes) ; preecipue in cultis, hinc

inde vulgaris.

Phytonomus variabilis.

Curculio variabilis, Hbst., Kaif. vi. 263 (1795). Hypera

variabilis, Woll., Ins. Mad. 400 (1854) ; Id., Cat. Mad.

Col. 119 (1857) ; (pars), Id., Cat. Can. Col. 328 (1864).

Hypera murina (pars), Id., Col. Atl. 305 (1865). Phyto-

nomus variabilis, Cap., loc. cit. 205 (1868).

Hab.—Maderenses, et Canarienses; una cum specie

precedenti, nisi fallor, degens.

p- 809 (genus ATLANTIS).

(Sp. 858) Atlantis noctivayans.

My attention having been drawn by T. 8. Leacock,

Hsq., during our late sojourn at Madeira, to the fact that

an Atlantis has long been known in the vineyards, in

most parts of the island, under the name of the “besta

da vinha,”’ from causing great injury to the vines—the

young shoots of which it would often entirely destroy, I

272 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

took a considerable series of it from his vineyard at 8.

Joao, near Funchal, hoping that the examples thus ob-

tained might enable me to clear up one or two doubtful

points concerning some of the closely-allied forms which

I had originally published as specifically distinct, but two

of which I afterwards suppressed,—feeling it more pro-

bable that they were in reality but local races of the

(evidently variable) A. noctivagans. Accordingly, having

hkewise captured a long array of individuals, barely

differmg at first sight from the others, at 8. Antonio da

Serra, I have been examining the two sets with unusual

care,—being satisfied that if there is more than a single

species concealed amongst the three forms which I

admitted into my emended definition of the A. noctiva-

gans in 1857, two at any rate would be likely to present

themselves amongst my series from regions so dissimilar,

and remote, as the vineyards around Funchal and the

elevated mountain-district of S. Antonio da Serra. The

result is that, despite the prima facie resemblance of the

whole, I cannot but believe, as I did originally in 1854,

that, after all, there must be two species indicated (one

found in the higher altitudes, and the other in the lower),

and that consequently I was mistaken when, in my sub-

sequently-published (and re-adjusted) Madeiran Cata-

logue, I referred them both (contrary to my original

conviction) to a single plastic type. Yet at the same

time the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the true

specific limits of these variable, scale-covered Cyclomides

must be my excuse if even now I am in error, when

endeavouring to re-instate at all events one of the two

forms which, although treated in the ‘Insecta Made-

rensia’ as truly specific, I afterwards suppressed.

Since the true A. noctivagans (as enunciated by me in

1854) clearly attains its maximum in the laurel regions

of a high altitude (being more particularly abundant from

about 2000 to 5000 feet above the sea) , [had always thought

it extremely improbable that it could be absolutely con-

specific with the particular form (so much resembling it)

whose manifestly normal range is the vineyards and cul-

tivated grounds of the lower districts ; yet the differences

were so slight between the two, and both forms were so

inconstant, that it was difficult to arrive at a satisfactory

solution of the problem. But, taking their habits again

into consideration, I am inclined to believe now that the

Atlantic Coleoptera. 275

one differential character which I have been able to detect

(slight though it be) must suffice for their specific sepa-

ration. Fortunately that character is a structural one,

and I do not perceive that it is subject to any great

amount of instability. It consists in the exact shape of

the “heel,” or projecting process which constitutes the

inner apical angle of the two hinder tibiz in the male

sex,—a kind of compressed spur, which in the A. nocti-

vagans terminates in an acute prominent angle, but in

the allied form from the lower regions in a comparatively

rounded or obtuse truncate plate. This latter species

includes the A. lawripotens and australis of my ‘Insecta

Maderensia ;’ and it is usually, ikewise, a trifle larger,

on the average, and more densely and softly pubescent,

than the genuine A. noctivagans of the higher altitudes,

as well as perhaps alittle more ferruginous or less brightly

tessellated ; and in order therefore to place on record the

conclusion at which I have now (again) arrived, that the

lauripotens (so destructive, and abundant, in the vine-

yards around Funchal) should be treated as distinct from

its ally, I will cite it afresh, and correct its synonymy,

as follows :* —

Atlantis lauripotens.

Atlantis lauripotens, Woll., Ins. Mad. 369 (1854).

Atlantis australis, Id., Ibid. 870 (1854). Atlantis nocti-

vagans (pars), Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 114 (1857); (pars),

Id., Col. Atl. 311 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in cultis inferioribus

abundans: presertim in vinetis ramulos vinearum de-

struit.

* Even though abundant, more particularly, in the vineyards of a low

elevation, I do not think it necessary to adopt the name of australis for

this species, in preference to that of lawripotens,—(1) because the original

diagnosis of the latter (in the ‘Ins. Mad.’) agrees more accurately with

the particular form which I wish now to define, and (2) because I have

little doubt (since the vine is not truly indigenous to Madeira) that the

Atlantis in question is in reality a laurel insect (perhaps ccmmon in the

lower districts before the primeval forests were cleared away) which has

simply adapted its mode of life to the altered circumstances of the island.

Whether, however, this ‘‘adaptation”’ may in any way account for the

slight structural peculiarity which it now presents, it would be idle even

to speculate.

274 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

(Sp. 869) Atlantis cenescens.

This Madeiran Atlantis, which I had regarded hitherto

as somewhat scarce, appears to be the common species

throughout the mountain region of S. Antonio da Serra,

—where, during March, April, and May of 1870 we met

with it in profusion, by sifting fallen leaves and rubbish,

particularly in sylvan spots. It ascends however to a

very high altitude, being equally common towards the

summit of the Pico Gordo and in the direction of the

Poizo; and this indeed accords with the habitat of my

original types, which were taken ‘on the lofty upland

ridges between the Fonte das Mocas and the Pico do

Areeiro,—from about 4000 to 5000 feet above the sea.

It is very nearly allied to the A. ventrosa—which is found

hkewise at a high elevation, though more frequently on

the exposed mountain-slopes; but it may be known from

that species by being, on the average, rather smaller,

shorter, and more ovate (or ventricose), as well as just

appreciably more shining and brassy, with its limbs

perceptibly paler or more rufescent. Its antenna more-

over are, if anything, a trifle shorter,—the funiculus

joints a little more abbreviated.

p. 327 (genus SconiocERrus).

It would appear that this genus is, after all, identical

with Cathormiocerus of Erichson, though, in the absence

of a type of the latter from which to form an opinion, I

pointed out a few characters (im my diagnosis of it in

1854) which I thought might perhaps serve to separate

it therefrom. Seidlitz, however, in his late revision of

the Otiorhynchides (vide Berl. Ent. Zeitsch., 1868), seems

to have no doubt on the matter; and Mr. Rye (Hunt.

Month. Mag. 151; 1870) goes so far as to question

whether “ future entomologists will consider Cathormio-

cerus aS im reality distinct from Trachyphleus.” Be this

however as it may (and the members of the two groups

are certainly, as regards their structure, barely distin-

guishable from each other), Scoliocerus it is clear must, at

any rate, as a genus, be suppressed; and I would there-

fore desire for the future to cite the two Madeiran

Curculionids which I have hitherto referred to it, as

Cathormiocert. I may also add that the (. ewrvipes does

not appear to be peculiar (like the C. maderce) to that

island, it having been observed during the last few years

both in France and Algeria.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 275

p. 828 (genus Cmnopsis).

(Sp. 914) Caenopsis Waltoni.

Until our late visit to Madeira the admission of this

European Curculionid into the island list was dependant

upon a single example which was taken, a few years ago,

by the late Mr. Bewicke, at “ the Mount ”—about 1700

feet above Funchal. But during our sojourn at the Mount,

in January, February, and March of 1870, we met with

it rather abundantly, in the grounds of the Quinta do

Prazer,—not merely beneath logs and chippings of wood,

but more particularly by sifting fallen leaves. I did not

observe it, however, in any other district; and during an

after residence at 8. Antonio da Serra, although the

Trachyphleus scaber (which so much resembles it) was

tolerably common, there was no appearance of Ccenopsis.

Fam. BRUCHIDA.

p. 340 (genus Bruchus).

(Sp. 943) Bruchus subellipticus.

According to Kraatz (Berl. Ent. Zeitsch. 351; 1869),

this Bruchus is the irresectus of Schénherr’s ‘Gen. et Spec.

Curc.,’ an insect recorded as Persian, and distinct from

the B. mimosce—with which, in that work, in habit and

affinity, it is compared.* I had always felt it probable

indeed that the B. subellipticus would sooner or later be

identified with some known form, for it had every

appearance in Madeira of having been naturalized through

the medium of commerce; nevertheless being unable

to identify it, | was compelled to treat it as new. It has

manifestly acquired a wide geographical range; and Mr.

Crotch lately re-described it, under the name of B.

Breweri, from the Azores. Its emended synonymy will

stand thus :—

Bruchus irresectus.

Bruchus irresectus, Fhs., in Schén. Gen. et Spee Cure.

v.18 (1839). Bruchus subellipticus, Woll., Ins. Mad.

* Kraatz likewise considers the ‘‘obtectus, Schén.’’ to be identical with

the B. irresectus; but as the only Bruchus in Schénherr’s work which

bears that title is a North-American one described by Say, and is placed

at the end of the genus amongst the forms which Schénherr had not

inspected, I feel doubtful whether the Louisiana species can be referred

safely to the irresectus and subellipticus.

276 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

420 (1854) ; Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 123 (1857) ; Id., Col.

Atl. 341 (1865). Bruchus Breweri, Crotch, Proc. Zool.

Soc. Lond. 379 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; hine inde in domibus et

granariis.

Fam. CRY PTOCEPHALIDA.

p. 855 (genus CRYPTOCEPHALUS) .

(Sp. 976) Cryptocephalus crenatus.

This Madeiran Cryptocephalus appears to be much at-

tached to the various kinds of Sedwm and Sempervivum ;

and during our late sojourn at ‘the Mount” (about

1700 feet above Funchal) we met with it in profusion on

the fleshy leaves of a shrubby species of one of those

plants,—in company with the exceedingly rare Ceuthor-

hynchus lineatotessellatus, which is equally partial to the

Seda and Semperviva.

Fam. CHRYSOMELIDA.

p. 361 (genus Mniopuinosoma).

When defining this genus (Ins. Mad. 433) in 1854, I

stated that the four anterior feet of the male sex have

their basal joint considerably enlarged. A more careful

inquiry has just convinced me that the articulation is

almost as greatly developed in the hinder pair likewise ;

so that I would desire to make a correction to that effect

in my original diagnosis. Moreover, although I noticed

the fact that the M. leve has sometimes a perceptibly

greenish tinge (like the individual figured in the ‘ Ins.

Mad.’) whilst at others it is entirely black, I omitted to

mention that the examples in the latter predicament

(which I may here cite as the “ var. 8. obscurior”’) have

their limbs not only less clearly rufo-testaceous, but also

their antennal club and tarsi more or less conspicuously

darkened.

Fam. HALTICIDA.

p. 364 (genus Lonarrarsus).

(Sp. 1007) Longitarsus saltator.

_ I find that this large Longitarsus is attached to a

Scrophularia which is common throughout the inter-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 277

mediate elevations of Madeira. During our residence at

“the Mount,” in January, February, and March of 1870,

we met with it sparingly on that particular species of

plant; and I subsequently captured it, under similar

circumstances, though still more rarely, at S. Antonio

da Serra.

Fam. COCCINELLIDA.

p. 377 (genus HEpracuna).

Mr. G. R. Crotch, who is engaged just now in studying

the Coccinellide, informs me that he believes my Canarian

Hpilachna bella and 4-plagiata belong to the genus Platy-

naspis, and that the 10-plagiata of the Madeiran and

Canarian archipelagos is most likely referable to the

genus Pharus,—beimg manifestly allied to the P. setulo-

sus from Algeria.

p. 878 (genus CoccrnELLa).

I may just mention that two examples of the common

European Coccinella mutabilis (so general in the Madeiran

Group), and one of the well-nigh cosmopolitan C. 7-pune-

tata, have lately been detected by myself amongst some

specimens (in spirits-of-wine) which had been obtained

by the Baron Paiva from the Great Salvage ; so that the

very limited Coleopterous fauna of that small and remote

island must be credited accordingly,

p. 382 (genus Scymnvs).

After species 1054, add :—

Scymnus epistemoides.

S. ellipticus, niger aut subpiceo-niger, nitidulus, leviter

punctulatus, parce cinereo-pubescens; prothorace breviter

subconico, concolori; elytris subventricosis ; labro, an-

tennis, palpis pedibusque infuscate testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. 3.

Scymnus epistemoides, Woll., Col. Hesp., Append., 276

(1867).

TRANS. ENT. SOC. 1871.—PartT tr. (MAY.) U

278 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Hab.—Maderenses (Pto. Sto.) ; exemplar unicum olim

collegit Dom. Bewicke.

Obs.—Species nigra, aptera, S. limnichoides propm-

quans; sed subminor (?), magis elliptica (7. e., antice et

postice subacutior), vix minus nitida, et conspicue levius

minutiusque punctata, prothorace magis conico (antice

sensim angustiore), etiam ad latera concolori, linea

basali magis per basin ipsissiman sita, elytris paulo magis

ventricosis (pone basin utrinque magis rotundatis) .

In the Appendix to my ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ I

stated that “the single example from which the above

diagnosis has been compiled was taken in Porto Santo,

several years ago, by the late Mr. Bewicke, and was

inadvertently identified by myself with the 8. limnichoides

—to which in its size, general affinity, apterous body,

and dark colour it closely approaches. The specimen

having however, since the death of Mr. Bewicke, fallen

into my possession, | am enabled to examine it with

greater care, and I now perceive that it is unquestionably

distinct from the limnichoides—though belonging clearly

to the same type. Whether it be a trifle smaller than

that species I can, from the evidence afforded by a single

individual, scarcely say; but it is considerably more

elliptical in outline, or sharper before and behind (the

prothorax being more conical, or attenuated in front,

and the elytra more rounded outwards behind the

shoulders) ; it is also much more lightly, and finely,

punctulated; and its prothorax, which has the basal line

placed even still nearer to the extreme edge, does not

appear (at any rate in the example before me) to be

diluted in hue towards the sides. Although there is no

label appended to it, I have said that it was captured in

Porto Santo because I distinctly recollect that it was

communicated to me by Mr. Bewicke as found by him-

self in that island.”

Fam. OPATRID.

p. 414 (genus Hanrvs).

Fairmaire (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France, 546;

1856) says that the Opatrum carbonarium of Schonherr

is a member of this genus; but, as rightly observed by

Lacordaire (Gen. v. 274, note 1), Schénherr has no Opa-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 279

trum under that title in his published works. Accordingly

the Baron Harold, in his recent Catalogue (p. 1939), makes

the Platynotus carbonarius of Quensel (defined, in 1806, in

Schénherr’s ‘ Synonymia Insectorum,’i. 142, note «) iden-

tical with the common Madeiran Hadrus cinerascens ; and

if his conjecture be correct, of course the former name will

have the priority over Dejean’s one of cinerascens ; but

since the habitat given for the P. carbonarius is “ in in-

sula Java, ad Augeri,” and it is likewise difficult, even

assuming that a mistake had arisen as regards the

country from which it was obtained, to decide as to

which of the four nearly-allied Hadri the title of carbona-

rius should belong, I prefer—until both of these points

have been satisfactorily cleared up—to quote it still as

the H. cinerascens.

Fam. ULOMIDA.

p. 418 (genus ADELINA).

According to the recent Catalogue of Gemminger and

Harold (p. 1987), this genus is identical with Sitophagus

of Mulsant (Col. Fr., Latig., 264; 1854); but I have not

had any opportunity, myself, of comparing a type of the

latter with my Adelina farinaria.

Fam. HELOPIDA.

p. 426 (genus Henors).

(Sp. 1175) Helops arboricola.

Of this large and apparently scarce Madeiran Helops I

took a single example, beneath the loosened bark of an

old Spanish-chestnut tree (during our sojourn at ‘the

Mount”), about 1800 feet above Funchal. I think this

locality worth placing upon record, because the only spots

in which the species had hitherto been observed are the

Vasco Gil ravine and the Rib. de Santa Luzia,—in both

of which it was captured, under precisely similar circum-

stances as by myselfatthe Mount, by the late Mr. Bewicke.

(Sp. 1177) Helops asper.

Although I still believe that what I regarded in the

‘Ins. Mad!’ as the “state 8” of this insect is truly con-

specific with the “state a” (for the two forms seem to

merge gradually into each other), nevertheless as there

is such a decided primd facie difference between the two

vu 2

280 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

that some naturalists might perhaps be induced to treat

them as distinct, I will propose for the former (which

occurs in the higher elevations, and is the more hghtly

sculptured of the two, with the hinder edge of its pro-

thorax more arched-out, or sinuate) the varietal name of

obliteratus, retaining (as formerly) the ‘state a” for the

type.

(Sp. 1179) Helops congener.

It appears that the title of congener for this Canarian

insect cannot be retained, a Helops congener haying been

described by Reiche (vide Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de France,

372) in 1861. Hence, the name of conformis having been

proposed for it, in 1870, by Gemminger, the synonymy

of the species will stand thus :—

Helops conformis.

Helops congener, Woll. [nec Reiche, 1861], Cat. Can.

Col. 504 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 429 (1865). Helops con-

formis, Gemm., Col. Heft. vi. (1870).

Hab.—Canariensis (Can., Ten., Palma, Hierro); hine

inde, preecipue in intermediis, congregans.

(Sp. 1187) Helops subdepressus.

Until our late visit to Madeira I had not myself ever

captured this very distinct Helops,—three examples, which

were found by Mr. Mason, and three more by Mr. Be-

wicke, being all that had come beneath my notice ; but

during our sojourn at S. Antonio da Serra, in March,

April, and May of 1870, we met with it not only amongst

hchen on the trunks of various trees, but more particu-

larly under the loose outer fibre of the gigantic Heaths

(Hrica arborea, L.) for which the little wood known in

that upland region as the ‘ Circa” is so justly cele-

brated.

Fam. SCYDM ANID.

p. 448 (genus Scypmznuvs).

(Sp. 1236) Scydmcnus castaneus.

The late Dr. Schaum having apparently (vide Mon. 21)

published a Seydmenus under the above title in 1841,

Atlantic Coleoptera. 281

the name of castanicolor has been proposed for the pre-

sent Canarian species by the Baron Harold; and the

synonymy of it will consequently stand thus :—

Scydmeenus castanicolor.

Scydmenus castaneus, Woll. [nee Schm. 1841], Col.

Atl. 449 (1865). Scydmenus castanicolor, Har., Col.

Heft. 11. 164 (1868).

Hab.— Canarienses (Gom., Hierro); sub marcidis

foliisque dejectis a DD. Crotch repertus.

p- 449. After the genus Scypmanus, add :-—

Genus CEPHENNIUM.

Miiller, Mon. d. Ameisenk. 12 (1822).

Cephennium mycetceoides, n. sp.

C. elongatulum, obovato-ellipticum, nitidulum, omnino

(palpis tarsisque testaceis exceptis) pallide rufo-ferrugi-

neum et grosse fulvo-cinereo pubescens, parum dense sed

minute (in elytris distinctior) punctulatum ; prothorace

magno, convexo, postice angustiore, ad latera oblique

recto et anguste marginato: coleopteris ellipticis basi

truncatis, utrinque ad basin ipsam mox intra humeros

fovea magna lati sed vix profunda impressis ; antennis

pedibusque elongatis, robustis.

Long. corp. lin. #.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in montibus excelsis supra

S. Ant. da Serra, inter folia Vaccinii dejecta, exemplar

unicum inveni.

Obs.—Species valde distincta, OC. thoracico, Kuropeo,

multo major, elongatior, minus nitida, densius (tamen

minute) punctulata, et omnino pallide rufo-ferruginea,

prothorace elytrisque longioribus, illius angulis posticis

rectioribus, horumque fovea basali multo latiore ac magis

humerali sed minus profunde et minus argute determi-

nata, antennis pedibusque longioribus, robustioribus.

The single example from which the above diagnosis

has been compiled is perhaps the most interesting of the

various additions which we made to the fauna of Madeira

during our late campaign in that island ; and it having

282 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

been met with also at a great elevation on the mountains

(namely by sifting fallen leaves near the summit of the

Pico Gordo, far above the inhabited districts), I have

little doubt that the species is a truly indigenous one,

and in all probability peculiar to those wild upland

regions. Judging from the type before me, it is consi-

derably larger, and relatively more elongate, than the

Huropean C. thoraciewm; and it is also less shining,

much more densely (although minutely) punctulated,

and its colour (instead of being dark) is altogether pale

reddish-ferruginous ; its prothorax and elytra are longer

in proportion, and the former has its hinder angles more

evidently right angles, whilst the latter have their basal

fovea, although not so deep and well defined, both larger

and wider, and placed nearer to either shoulder. Its

limbs, too, are longer and more robust. Its colour and

prima facie aspect are faintly suggestive of a narrow

Myceteea,—a circumstance which | have taken advantage

of in selecting a specific name.

Cephennium australe.

C. ellipticum, nitidulum, parce sed grosse fulvo-cinereo

pubescens, remote sed parum profunde punctatum ; capite

prothoraceque pallide rufo-ferrugineis, illo convexo, pos-

tice ad latera subrecto et anguste marginato ; coleopteris

piceis vel ferrugineo-piceis, ad basin ipsam fovea media

rotundata utrinque impressis; antennis pedibusque tes-

taceis.

Long. corp. lin. 3-3.

Cephennium australe, Woll., Col. Hesp., Append. 277

(1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); a meipso in castanetis

editioribus longe supra Funchal (sc. 1800’ s. m.) mense

Decembri, A.D. 1865, parce deprehensum.

Obs.—Species C. thoracico, Huropeo, minor, angustior,

minus polita, paulo densius punctata, necnon omnino

pallidior—sc. capite prothoraceque pallide subrufescenti-

bus, elytrisque plus minus picescentibus.

I captured three examples of this interesting little

Cephennium on the 19th of December, 1865, while touching

at Madeira, with Mr. Gray, on our outward route to the

Cape Verdes. They were taken by sifting fallen leaves

Atlantic Coleoptera. 283

and refuse, in the chestnut-woods at ‘the Mount ”—

about 1800 feet above Funchal; but their extremely

minute size rendered them somewhat difficult to detect.

They are smaller and narrower than the European C.

thoracicum ; also less highly polished, rather less remotely

punctured, and considerably paler—their head and pro-

thorax being pale rufo-ferruginous, and their elytra more

or less piceous; whilst the limbs, which are slender, are

brownish-testaceous.

Fam. PSELAPHIDA.

p. 452 (genus PsELAPHUS).

After species 1244, add :—

Pselaphus minyops, 0. sp.

P. gracilis, rufo-castaneus, nitidissimus, parcissime

fulvo-pubescens, impunctatus; capite prothoraceque an-

gustissimis, ovalibus, oculis minutis; elytris triangulari-

bus, brevibus, singulis lineis duabus integris (sc. suturali

et discali) instructis ; antennis, palpis pedibusque longis-

simis ; palporum articulo ultimo longissimo, subflexuoso,

gradatim facile clavato ; antennarum articulo Imo et ultimo

robustis, illo elongato, hoc ovato, apicem versus oblique

truncato.

Long. corp. lin. circa 1.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); ad S. Ant. da Serra, im

lauretis editioribus, a meipso parcissime lectus.

Three examples of this very distinct and interesting

Pselaphus were taken by myself, during May of 1870, by

sifting fallen leaves and rubbish at S. Antonio da Serra,

in the intermediate districts of Madeira. It is a little

larger than the European P. Heisti, with the limbs

considerably longer, with the head and prothorax (each

of them) narrower and more elongate, and with the eyes

very much smaller. Its elytra also are still more

attenuated towards their base, the apical joint of its

palpi is more flexuose and much less suddenly clavated,

and the basal and terminal ones of its antennz (the latter

of which is more obliquely-truncate) are more developed.

In its extremely narrowed head and prothorax, as well

as in the peculiar shape of the last joint of its maxillary

palpi, the P. minyops is in reality more on the type of

the Canarian P. palpiger; nevertheless it may imme-

284 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

diately be known from that insect by being not only rather

larger and with more elongated limbs, but likewise by

its eyes (although minute) being distinctly developed,

by its elytra bemg less abbreviated, less plicate at the

base, and with their discal line entire, by the second

joint of its feet being rather less clavate, and by the first

one of its antennee being much longer.

Fam. STAPHYLINIDA.

p. 452 (genus Fanaaria).

Before species 1245, add :—

Falagria longipes, n. sp.

F. gracillima, nitida, ineequaliter brunneo-picea, parce

subtiliter fulvo-pubescens; capite prothoraceque parce

vix punctulatis, illo quadrato-orbiculato, hoc elongato,

hexagono-cordato, linea media profunda impresso, angulis

ipsis posticis acute prominulis; elytris evidentius sed

minute punctulatis, sensim magis testaceis sed in disco

et versus utrumque latus obscurioribus; abdomine dis-

tinctius punctulato, versus basin testaceo-dilutiore ; an-

tennis, palpis pedibusque longissimis, infuscate testaceis,

illis in medio obscurioribus sed ad apicem late rufo-tes-

taceis, femoribus (ad basin, preecipue in posterioribus,

exceptis) plus minus obscuratis.

Long. corp. lin. 14.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); sub cortice laxo necnon

inter quisquilias in horto quodam juxta urbem Funchal-

ensem tria exemplaria deprehendi.

The larger size and much longer limbs of this fine

Falagria would, even of themselves, at once separate it,

even at first sight, from the common Kuropean Lf’. obscura

—which is so abundant in most of these Atlantic islands.

It may however be further known from that species by

the paler or more reddish-brown hue of its head and

prothorax (the former of which is relatively rounder,

whilst the latter, which has a much deeper dorsal groove

extending along its entire length, is much longer and

more rectangular behind, though with the posterior angles

themselves acutely prominent), by the lighter portion of

its elytra being clearer or more testaceous, by its abdomen

being diluted behind, and by its femora (at any rate

Atlantic Coleoptera. 285

except at their base) being picescent. Its antennz, also,

in addition to being longer, are rufo-testaceous at their

base and apex, the intermediate joimts being reddish-

brown. It appears to be extremely scarce, the only three

examples which I have yet seen having been captured by

myself, during March of 1870, beneath the loosened bark

of a felled tree, and amongst refuse, in Madeira,—namely

in the garden of the Quinta dos Jasmineiros, on the

western outskirts of Funchal.

p- 455 (genus Paimorora).

(Sp. 1250) Phleeopora corticina.

When compiling my Canarian Catalogue (in 1864), I

imagined that the present Phlaopora offered a few trifling

characters sufficient to permit of its being treated as

distinct from the common Huropean P. reptans. It is

the opinion, however, of Dr. Sharp that it ought not to

be separated from that species; and, on further consi-

deration, I agree with him in so thinking. Until our

late visit to Madeira it had been observed only (so far as

these Atlantic Groups are concerned) in the Canarian

archipelago; but during the early spring of last year I

met with two examples of it in the latter island also,—

namely, beneath the bark of a felled Spanish-chestnut

tree at “the Mount,” about 1700 feet above Funchal.

Hence, its corrected habitat and synonymy will be as

follows; and perhaps it may be desirable, also, to add an

emended diagnosis.

Phleopora reptans.

P. linearis, angustula, (abdomine nitidiusculo rugosi-

usque punctato excepto) subopaca, subtilissime punctu-

lata, pube fulvescenti demissi grossi vestita; capite

prothoraceque nigris, illo subconvexo, hoc (interdum

paulo dilutiore) transverso-quadrato, angulis posticis

obtusis sed argute determinatis; elytris rufo-ferrugineis,

versus basin et latera plus minus obscurioribus ; abdomine

nigro, ad apicem ferrugineo; antennis brevibus, incras-

Satis, fuso-, ad basin pedibusque rufo-testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. 14.

286 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Aleochara reptans, Grav., Mon. 154 (1806). Phlaopora

reptans, Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. 11. 337 (1858).

Phleopora corticina, Woll., Cat. Can. Col. 533 (1864);

Id., Col. Atl. 455 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses ( Mad.) , et Canarienses (J’en., Gom.,

Palma, Hierro); sub cortice in intermediis, rarior.

p. 458 (genus Homatota).

Out of the 44 species of Homalota which have hitherto

been detected in the Madeiran and Canarian archipelagos,

32 have been examined by Dr. Sharp—who it is well

known has paid great attention to the members of that

genus; and since many of his remarks possess consider-

able interest, as bearing on the affinities of certain forms,

I purpose calling attention to them in my observations

as given below. Out of this large number it is at least

satisfactory to find that only one (namely my Madeiran

H, obliquepunctata—which appears to be identical with

the pavens of Hrichson) requires positively to be cited

under a fresh title; though at the same time itis extremely

likely that one more name at any rate will have eventually

to be changed,—my Canarian H. subsericea being in all

probability conspecific (as indeed I originally suspected)

with Mulsant’s H. sericea; and also that the Teneriffan

H. aleocharoides will have to be suppressed, as probably

a mere phasis of the common H. clientula. It is true that

the Madeiran H. montivagans has been identified by Dr.

Sharp with Kraatz’s pulchra; but in this case no dis-

turbance will be necessary, of the Atlantic nomenclature,

the former title having the priority. One endemic form,

however, which I had regarded as a mere variety (namely

the “ H. sanguinolenta, var. B”’ of my hitherto published

volumes) has been raised, and I now believe quite cor-

rectly so, to the rank of a species; and I have great

pleasure in dedicating it to Dr. Sharp, at whose sugges-

tion the alteration has been made.

Amongst these forty-four Madeiran and Canarian Homa-

lotas there are (in addition to the montivagans, pavens,

and perhaps sericea) at any rate thirteen ordinary European

species, all of which appear to have been rightly deter-

mined in my ‘Coleoptera Atlantidum.’ They are as

follows: clientula, Erich. ; plumbea, Waterh. ; luridipennis,

Mann.; gregaria, Erich. ; longula, Heer; fragilis, Kr. ;

Atlantic Coleoptera. 287

palustris, Kiesw.; analis, Grav.; nigra, Kr.; atramentaria,

Gyll.; coriaria, Kr.; longicornis, Grav., and melanaria,

Sahlb. But of these thirteen there seems a possibility of

the Madeiran ‘ H. longula”’ proving to be specifically

distinct from the Canarian form, which last differs in no

respect from the Huropean type. *

(Sp. 1261) Homalota sanguinolenta.

A more careful examination, during the past winter,

of a very extensive series of this Homalota has convinced

me that the form which I have hitherto recorded as the

“‘var. 8” is in reality specifically distinct; and I am

the further corroborated in this from the opinion of Dr,

Sharp—who considers that there can be no question on

the subject. It will perhaps therefore be desirable to

give an emended diagnosis of the type, and afterwards

(in order to point out the distinctions more accurately)

a comparative one of its ally.

Homalota sanguinolenta.

H. aptera, subnitida, dense rugulosa-punctulata, plus

minus infuscate rufo-testacea, fulvo-pilosa; capite abdo-

mineque (nitido parcius punctulato, ultra medium sub-

dilatato) obscurioribus, 7. e. seepius piceis; prothorace

lato, ad latera rotundato; elytris brevibus; antennis

fusco-piceis, ad basin pedibusque testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. 1}-1}.

Homalota sanguinolenta, Woll., Ins. Mad. 547 (1854);

Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 173 (1857); Id., Col. Atl. 459 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); inter quisquilias in inter-

medus editioribusque sylvaticis, vulgatissima.

* Although the present memoir pertains to the Madeiran and Canarian

archipelagos only, I may perhaps just state that of the six species of

Homalota which I recorded for the Cape Verde Group, five have lately

been examined by Dr. Sharp—who remarks concerning them as follows:

H. coriaria, “differs in no respect from the usual, more northern type ;”

subputrescens, ‘‘ distinct from the Canarian H. putrescens, Woll., next to

which it must be placed; clientula, ‘‘this seems to be a little more

strongly punctured than the ordinary European form, and might perhaps

come nearer in reality to the H. orbata;”’ glareosa, ‘*a very distinct species,

to be placed next to H. testudinea;”’ and carbunculus, “ a well-marked little

species, of the aterrima group.”

288 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

An abundant Homalota throughout the entire sylvan

districts of Madeira,—occurring, normally, from about

2000 to 5000 feet above the sea. It appears to belong

to the same group as the Huropean H. fungi.

Homalota Sharpiana, n. sp.

H. precedenti similis, sed plerumque paulo major et

vix sublatior; capite (sensim latiore) , prothorace elytris-

que conspicue clarioribus, sc. lete rufo-testaceis aut

testaceo-rufis: abdomine utin H. sanguinolenta sed magis

setoso et versus apicem leetius dilutiore; antennis sub-

robustioribus, ac paululum minus obscurioribus.

Long. corp. lin. 13-13.

Homalota sanguinolenta, var. 8, Woll., Ins. Mad. 547

(1854); (pars), Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 173 (1857); (pars),

Id., Col. Atl. 459 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in regionibus sylvaticis una

cum specie precedente degens, sed in locis valde humidis

precipue abundat. Species in honorem cl. D. Sharp

citata, Staphylinorum indefessi oculatissimi scrutatoris.

This is on the average a trifle larger, and perhaps

broader, than the H. sangwinolenta, and its head (which

is appreciably more developed), prothorax, and elytra

are of a much paler and redder hue,—being clear rufo-

testaceous ; its abdomen is more diluted at the apex, and

more densely studded with long sete ; and its antennz

are a little more robust, and not quite so dark. It is

found in company with the H. sanguinolenta, but is usually

the rarer of the two; nevertheless during the spring of

1870 I met with it in great abundance throughout the

entire region of 8. Antonio da Serra,—perhaps, on the

whole, in somewhat wetter places than those which are

generally most favourable to its ally. I have much

pleasure in naming it after Dr. D. Sharp, whose indefati-

gable labours amongst the European Staphylinide are

well known, and to whom I have been much indebted for

many valuable remarks on the affinities of some of the

Atlantic species.

(Sp. 1262) Homalota haligena.

Although manifestly allied (as I have elsewhere stated)

to the H. sanguinolenta, Dr. Sharp is of opinion that the

Atlantic Coleoptera. 289

haligena is certainly distinct from that species,—differing

in the punctation of the elytra, as well as in the other

characters which I have already pointed out.

(Sp. 1264) Homalota montivagans.

This species has been identified by Dr. Sharp with the

H. pulchra of Kraatz (Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. ii. 321;

1858); but as my diagnosis was published a year before

Kraatz’s, the title “montivagans” will clearly have the

priority. I may mention that during our late sojourn in

Madeira I took it sparingly (by sifting fallen leaves and

refuse) at S. Antonio da Serra, on the eastern mountains

of that island.

(Sp. 1265) Homalota vagepunctata.

A Canarian Homalota regarded as “a remarkably

distinct species” by Dr. Sharp, and apparently somewhat

akin to a British one which has lately been enunciated

by Mr. Rye (nt. Month. Mag. vu. 6; 1870) under the

name of H. Sharpi.

(Sp. 1268) Homalota obliquepunctata.

A Homalota (cited, also, lately, by Mr. Crotch, from

the Azores) which Dr. Sharp identifies with the European

HI. pavens, of Erichson; and the corrected synonymy of

which will, in consequence, stand as follows :—

Homalota pavens.

Homalota pavens, Hrich., Kif. der Mark Brand. i. 689

(1839). Homalota obliquepunctata, Woll., Ins. Mad. 549

(1854) ; Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 174 (1857); Id., Col. Atl.

461 (1865) ; Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 381 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in intermediis per mar-

gines aquarum, vel fluentium vel stagnantium, vulgaris.

(Sp. 1269) Homalota amnicola.

“A fine and distinct species, near to H. pavens and

insecta.”’—Dr. Sharp.

290 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

(Sp. 1271) Homalota gregaria.

So far as the Madeiran Group is concerned, this

European Homalota had been observed only in Porto

Santo—where (as in certain of the Canarian islands) it

swarms, beneath stones and shingle, along the edges of

the brackish, half-dried streams; but during our late

visit to Madeira I met with two examples of it (on the

80th of March, 1870) towards the extremity of the Ponta

de Sio Lourenco,—thus introducing the species into the

local list of Madeira proper, and affording another in-

stance of the curious similarity which exists between the

fauna of that low eastern promontory and that of Porto

Santo. Dr. Sharp says, concerning this Homalota, ‘ It

is just possible that it is a distinct species from our

gregaria ; but even if so, it is found in England likewise,

—for the ‘ H. gregaria, var. minor’ of my paper must be

referred to it.”

(Sp. 1273) Homalota amnigena.

According to Dr. Sharp this Homalota is allied to the

plamfrons, of Waterhouse.

(Sp. 1275) Homalota longula.

The Canarian specimens of this fragile little Homalota

agree in every respect with the ordinary European ones ;

but those which I have hitherto captured in Madeira are

just appreciably smaller and narrower, and Jikewise (un-

less indeed the whole of my examples be immature) paler,

with their head perhaps a trifle narrower and less square ;

so that Dr. Sharp is of opinion that they may possibly

prove to be the representatives of a species which is dis-

tinct from the other, however closely allied to it. Still,

the differential characters are so slight that I will not at

present venture to do more than indicate the Madeiran

form as a geographical one; though I will propose for it

in the following emended diagnosis a varietal name, m

the event of future investigations rendering its isolation

necessary.

Homalota longula.

H. et synonymia ut in Cat. Can. Col. p.539; sed adde ;

var. 8, maderce [an species distincta ? ]|—vix minor et

Atlantic Coleoptera. 291

angustior, necnon forsan pallidior, capite sensim angus-

tiore minusque quadrato.

Hab.—Canarienses (Lanz., Ten., Gom.), sed “ var. 8B”

Maderensibus (Mad.) pertinet; inter lapillos ad margines

aquarum velocissime cursitans.

The species would appear to possess a wide Atlantic

range, having been cited also by Mr. Crotch from the

Azores.

(Sp. 1279) Homalota subsericea.

Judging from a single type of this Homalota which I

sent to Dr. Sharp, he is inclined to suspect that the species

is not distinguishable from the European H. sericea, Muls. :

in all probability, therefore, the title “ subsericea” will

have eventually to give way.

(Sp. 1286) Homalota aleocharoides.

This will probably prove to be identical with the some-

what variable H. clientula. At any rate a single example

which has been examined by Dr. Sharp was thought by

him to be scarcely separable from that widely-spread

species.

(Sp. 1289) Homalota canariensis.

«A very distinct species,” according to Dr. Sharp—

who adds that ‘‘its place is in the H. plana group” of

his arrangement.

(Sp. 1290) Homalota insignis.

«A distinct species, of the merdaria group,” according

to Dr. Sharp—who likewise informs me that the nearly-

allied H. lta, of the Canarian archipelago, appears to him

(although closely resembling the Madeiran insignis) to

be separable from it.

(Sp. 1296) Homalota cacti.

Concerning this Canarian Homalota Dr. Sharp says—

“It is a species unknown to me, and one which should

be placed near the trinotata of Kraatz.”

292 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

(Sp. 1297) Homalota putrescens.

According to Dr. Sharp, “ pretty close to the boletobia,

Thoms., but really distinct; the male characters are very

curious.”

(Sp. 1299) Homalota Waterhousit.

Dr. Sharp remarks of this Canarian Homalota, “a dis-

tinct species, its nearest ally known to me being my

subeenea.” Fauvel indeed, from a cursory examination

of one of my types, has stated that it is identical with

the eneicollis of Sharp. But in that conclusion I think

that he was somewhat hasty; and I may mention that

Mr. Rye is clearly of the same opinion,—adding “‘ The

H. Waterhousii, Woll., is undoubtedly very close to

Sharp’s eneicollis (= wanthoptera,* Kby.), but I am

nevertheless convinced that it is a good species. It is

more engine-turned in the punctation of its elytra, and it

is also narrower and more convex; its prothorax is

rather less transverse ; and the apical joint of its antenna

(in both sexes) is much shorter.”

p. 473. After genus Oxypoda, insert the following :—

Genus Pracusa.

Erichson, Kif. der Mark Brand. 1. 370 (1837).

Nine or ten examples of a small Staphylinid which I

captured, during February of 1870, beneath the bark of

a felled Spanish-chestnut tree, at ‘‘ the Mount” (above

Funchal), in Madeira, have been identified by Dr. Sharp

with the British Placusa infima—which he informs me

he has taken under precisely similar circumstances in

England ; and I will therefore record the species, briefly,

as follows :—

Placusa impfima.

P. depressiuscula, subopaca, densissime ruguloso-punc-

tata, minute griseo-pubescens, nigra; elytris (praesertim

* Nec merdaria, Kraatz,—erroneously identified in Waterhouse’s Ca-

talogue with Kirby’s vanthoptera.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 293

postice) plus minus obscure fuscescentioribus ; prothorace

transverso, basi leviter bisinuato; antennis breviusculis,

subrobustis, ad basin pedibusque saturate testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. circa 1.

Placusa infima, Hrich., Gen. et Spec. Staph. 196 (1839);

Redt., Fna. Austr. 823 (1849); Kraatz, Nat. der Ins.

Deutsch. ii. 333 (1858).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); sub cortice laxo in casta-

netis longe supra urbem Funchalensem a meipso parce

deprehensa.

Whether the P. infima has been naturalized in Madeira,

or whether it is truly indigenous, it is useless to speculate ;

suffice it to observe that it was found within the cultivated

districts, at an elevation of about 1700 feet above the

sea, and that I did not observe it (in spite of a two

months’ residence on the actual spot) except beneath the

bark of a single Spanish-chestnut tree.

p. 473 (genus ALEocHARA).

(Sp. 1310) Aleochara mesta.

During our sojourn (in the spring of 1870) at S.

Antonio da Serra, on the eastern mountains of Madeira,

we met with one more example of this common Huropean

Aleochara—by sifting rubbish in an outhouse which

adjomed our residence. ‘The only Madeiran example

which, until then, had come beneath my notice was cap-

tured by myself, in 1855, in the Ribeira de Sta. Luzia.

After species 1312, add :—

Aleochara clavicornis.

A. nigra, elytris, antennarum basi, palpis pedibusque

fusco-testaceis, nitida, grosse sed vix dense fulvo-pubes-

cens, parce et subasperate punctata ; abdomine apicem

versus dilutiore; antennis crassis et (basi excepta)

piceis.

Long. corp. lin. 14.

Aleochara clavicornis, Redt., Fna. Austr. 822 (1849);

Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. ii. 108 (1858) ; Woll.,

Col. Hesp., Append., 277 (1867).

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT 1. (MAY.) x

294 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; juxta mare in urbe Fun-

chalensi a meipso mense Decembri 1865 semel capta.

In the Appendix to my ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ I

stated that ‘‘I met with a single specimen of this little

Aleochara, immediately behind the sea-beach, at Funchal

—during the few days that we touched there, in Decem-

ber 1865, on our outward route to the Cape Verdes.

Although occurring in central Hurope, it appears to be

found more particularly in Mediterranean latitudes; and

I may add that I took several examples of it, some years

ago, in the vicinity of Lisbon—a fact indeed which

suggests the possibility of its having perhaps been intro-

duced into Madeira (like, doubtless, many of the sterco-

raceous Staphylinide), along with cattle, from Portugal.

The Madeiran individual was captured on the wing; and

we may expect that the species will shortly become

abundant in the island, if indeed this is not the case

already. Although scarcely agreeing with the diagnosis

given by Kraatz, particularly as regards its somewhat

larger size, 1 am mdebted to M. Fauvel for identifying

it with Redtenbacher’s A. clavicornis.”

p. 476 (genus OLiGgora).

(Sp. 1814) Oligota castanea.

According to M. Fauvel this Canarian Oligota is the

rufipennis of Kraatz; but Dr. Sharp, who (in the absence

of a type of the latter for comparison) is inclined hkewise

to suspect that such may perhaps prove to be the case,

considers nevertheless that further evidence is desirable

before the two can safely be regarded as conspecific.

(Sp. 13815) Oligota inflata.

From information which has been given me by Dr.

Sharp, it would appear that the msect which I have

hitherto regarded as the O. inflata, Mann., is not that

species, but the parva of Kraatz. Indeed the Canarian

examples seem to be distinct from both, and perhaps

altogether undescribed ; but the Madeiran ones do not

differ, apparently, from the European O. parva; and I

may also add that the Oligota from the Cape Verde archi-

pelago which I described in 1867 under the title of ‘* con-

Atlantic Coleoptera. 295

tempta”’ is likewise referable to the parva—which would

consequently seem to be very widely spread over these

various Atlantic islands. In Madeira it is exceedingly

common (amongst refuse, and under the bark of felled

trees) throughout the cultivated districts—particularly

in gardens around Funchal; and in order that it may not

be confounded with the still more minute, and darker,

O. pusillima (which occurs also in the Madeiran Group),

I subjoin the diagnosis of it given in my ‘ Coleoptera

Hesperidum,’ along with its corrected synonymy and

habitat.

Oligota parva.

O. linearis, subnitida, parce griseo-pubescens, fusco-

nigra elytris plus minus fuscis, abdominis apice testaceo ;

capite prothoraceque minutissime punctulatis; elytris

abdomineque densius rugosiusque subasperato-punctatis ;

antennis pedibusque saturate testaceis, illarum articulis 3

ulterioribus parum abrupte incrassatis.

Long. corp. lin. $-vix 3.

Oligota inflata, Woll. [nee Mann.], Ins. Mad. 562

(1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 184 (1857). Oligota pygmea,

Kraatz [nec Sol.], Berl. Ent. Zeitsch. 852 (1858). Oligota

parva, Id., Ibid. 300 (1862). Oligota inflata, Woll., Cat.

Can. Col. 555 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 476 (1865). Oligota

contempta, Id., Col. Hesp. 231 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); inter quisquilias, necnon

sub cortice laxo emortuo, preecipue in cultis abundans.

Amongst a large number of specimens of the O. parva

(and a few of the pusillima) , which I collected in Madeira

during the spring of 1870, there is one which has been

identified by Dr. Sharp with his European O. rujficornis,

and which appears to agree perfectly with English exam-

ples (in my own collection) of that species. This there-

fore is an undoubted addition to the Atlantic catalogue,

and consequently I will briefly record it as follows :—

Oligota ruficornis.

O. linearis, subnitida, parce griseo-pubescens, nigra ;

capite prothoraceque minutissime punctulatis ; elytris

abdomineque densius rugosiusque subasperato-punctatis ;

296 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

antennis pedibusque saturate testaceis, illarum articulis

3 ulterioribus parum incrassatis, ultimo seepius plus minus

infuscato.

Long. corp. lin. 3.

Oligota ruficornis, Sharp, Ent. Month. Mag. vi. 232

(1870).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; tempore vernali, A.D. 1870,

a meipso capta.

This species is a little larger and relatively broader

than the O. parva ; it is also blacker (neither the elytra nor

the apex of the abdomen being much, if at all, diluted in

hue), and its antennz are yellowish-testaceous, the apical

joint only being usually a trifle infuscate. The only ex-

ample which I have yet seen from any of these Atlantic

islands was (as above stated) taken by myself, during

the spring of 1870, in Madeira,—I believe near Funchal.*

p. 477 (genus Somatium).

(Sp. 1317) Somatium anale.

Until our late visit to Madeira, I had considered this

insect as one of the rarest of the native Coleoptera; but

during a residence at S. Antonio da Serra, in the spring

of 1870, | met with it in tolerable abundance—not only

by sifting dead leaves and rubbish in sylvan cultivated

spots, but more especially by shaking piled-up masses of

rotten sticks which were thickly overgrown with lichen.

Dr. Sharp has called my attention to the fact that it is

certainly congeneric with the section of broad-bodied

Oligotas represented in Europe by the O. wanthopyga, api-

cata, and flavicornis,—which will probably combine, there-

*In addition to the O. parva, ruficornis, pusillima, and the Canarian

castanea, there is probably yet one more Atlantic Oligota, at least, which

remains to be recorded; but as my material (at present available) is too

scanty to render it desirable to erect a species in a group thus minute and

obscure, I prefer putting it aside until more satisfactory examples shall

hhave enabled me to pronounce upon it with precision. A single specimen

however, which I took in Madeira during our late campaign, was singled

out by Dr. Sharp as probably distinct (in its somewhat smaller head,

longer elytra, &c.) from the remainder, and it seems likely also that three

(rather imperfect) individuals which I captured formerly in Lanzarote of

the Canarian archipelago are conspecific with it. These latter are what I

assigned in my Canarian Catalogue to the inflata, Mann.; so that it is

probable that a fifth species (perhaps as yet undescribed) remains to be

recorded, and one which will be found to permeate both the Madeiran

and Canarian Groups.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 297

fore, with the S. anale into a tolerably well-defined group.

Indeed M. Fauvel (J Abeille, vi. 150) actually identified

it with Kraatz’s O. wanthopyga; but as nearly every

species which Fauvel has hitherto examined for me, from

these various Atlantic islands, has been returned with a

most unmistakeably false determination, I have no con-

fidence whatever in his dictum as regards Somatium.

p. 478 (genus Conosoma).

(Sp. 1819) Conosoma pubescens.

Without assigning his reasons for the change, Mr.

Crotch enters this common 'Tachyporid into his Azorean

Catalogue as the “ sericeus, Latr.’* Strictly, no doubt,

Paykull’s title of pwhescens (under which it has almost

universally been acknowledged) cannot be retained, for

there was already a “ Staphylinus pubescens” published

by De Geer in 1774; but as the latter falls now into a

totally different genus (—being a true Staphylinus) , and

the present Conosoma is invariably recognized under the

trivial name of pubescens, | hardly think that it is abso-

lutely necessary to disturb the commonly-received no-

menclature.

p. 482 (genus Mycrrororvs).

(Sp. 1328) Mycetoporus Johnsont.

During our late sojourn in Madeira I took several ex-

amples of a Mycetoporus throughout the elevated region

of S. Antonio da*Serra (chiefly by sifting fallen leaves

and rubbish) which seem to differ a little from the or-

dinary ones of the M. Jolnsoni, yet not sufficiently so, I

think, to be treated safely as representing more than a

slight variety, or state, of that species. I will however

give a short diagnosis of it as a “var. 8,” assigning to

it at the same time a varietal, or subspecific, name—in

the event of further material rendering it desirable, at

any future time, to cite it as distinct. It appears, on the

average, to be a trifle larger and darker than what I have

hitherto regarded as the M. Johnsoni type,—its antenna

. *T cannot but think that this must be a misprint, and that Lacordaire

(Faun. Ent. Paris, i. 519; 1835), not ‘‘ Latreille,” was intended.

298 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

being appreciably less pale, and its elytra (instead of

being concolorous with the prothorax) merging into

almost a piceous-black. Its elytra too are perhaps just

perceptibly more convex, and have their three longitu-

dinal rows of punctures somewhat more developed. The

following brief formula will suffice to place it upon

record.

Mycetoporus Johnsoni.

Var. 8, lubrica [an species vera ?]—plerumque paulo

major, elytris antennisque (precipue illis) obscurioribus,

punctorum seriebus tribus in elytris sensim distinctiori-

bus (¢. e. minus obsoletis).

Long. corp. lin. 1—vix 1}.

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; sub folia dejecta necnon

inter quisquilias supra S. Antonio da Serra, tempore

vernali 1870, haud infrequens.

p. 485 (genus Hersrornops).

(Sp. 13837) Heterothops minutus.

This widely-spread Heterothops, so nearly universal

(particularly amongst the refuse around the base of

corn-stacks, as well as in gardens and other cultivated

grounds) throughout the Madeiran and Canarian archi-

pelagos, would appear after all, according to Mr. Rye

(who has studied the genus with particular care), to be

inseparable from the common European H. dissimilis ;

and I would desire therefore to correct its synonymy

accordingly. I may just add however that M. Fauvel,

though with singular want of precision, identified 1it

(I? Abeille, vi. 150) with Erichson’s H. previus—a species,

nevertheless, from which it is totally distinct. *

Heterothops dissimilis.

Tachyporus dissimilis, Grav., Col. Micropt. 125 (1802).

Heterothops dissimilis, Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. i.

* According to a very valuable paper by Mr. Rye in the ‘Ent. Month.

Mag.’ (iv. 256), the T. previus, apart from the fact of its elytra being

perceptibly longer than its prothorax, ‘‘may be distinguished from the

dissimilis (the most abundant and widely distributed in the genus) by its

broader head and shorter and stouter antenne, the joints whereof are

sub-obconic, the apical ones being not longer than broad, and the basal

ones pitchy-red, by its much more finely and closely punctured abdomen,

and by its darker legs.”’

Atlantic Coleoptera. 299

485 (1858). Heterothops minutus, Woll., Ann. Nat.

Hist. vi. 53 (1860); Id., Cat. Can. Col. 562 (1864) ; Id.,

Col. Atl. 485 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.), et Canarienses (ins. omnes) ;

inter quisquilias, necnon precipue sub recremento farris

ad basin acervorum tritici sparso, hinc inde vulgaris.

p. 486 (genus QurptIvs).

(Sp. 13839) Quedius fulgidus.

The only Atlantic specimens of this insect which I

possess are three Canarian ones—from ‘Teneriffe and

Gomera ; and Dr. Sharp, having a short time ago requested

the loan of them for examination, remarks that they seem

to divide themselves into two rather different forms,—

one being larger with robust feet, and the usual darkened

antennz, and, as it seems to me, corresponding sufficiently

(though by no means exactly) with the northern type,

and the other being smaller, with lighter coloured limbs,

slenderer posterior tarsi, and the intermediate antennal

joints just appreciably more transverse. He then goes

on to add—* Both differ a little from any of the Huropean

forms, and if Thomson’s attempt at dividing Q. fulgidus

into several species be sustained, these would have to be

considered as two new species.” I cannot believe, how-

ever, myself, that either one or the other is really distinct

specifically from the European type,—though different

habitats may perhaps have resulted in slightly altered

races; nevertheless in the event of future naturalists

thinking it desirable to detach them (which I do not in

the least anticipate) from the more northern, ordinary

state, I would cite the larger one under the varietal name

of “robusta,” and the smaller one under that of ‘ depau-

perata.” Of my three individuals, one (corresponding

with the larger state) is from Gomera, and the other two

(smaller, and with paler limbs) from that island and

Teneriffe.

p. 487 (genus Ocypus).

(Sp. 13842) Ocypus olens.

This common European Ocypus, which occurs in the

whole seven islands of the Canarian archipelago (indeed

300 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

I have myself captured it in six of them), has been

reported by Mr. Crotch from the Azores—where it

appears also to be well-nigh universal; so that its total

absence from the Madeiran Group is even still more

remarkable. It seems to be cited in Dejean’s Catalogue

under the title of Hmus morosus, with the habitat ‘‘ Tene-

riffe ;”” and therefore the two following references may

be added to its synonymy as given in the ‘ Coleoptera

Atlantidum.’

Emus morosus, Dej., Cat. édit. 3, 68 (1837). Ocypus

vlens, Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 383 (1867).

(Sp. 1846) Ocypus curtipennis.

It appears from Harold’s recent Catalogue that an

Ocypus was published by Motschoulsky (Bull. Mosc. m.

87) under the title of curtipennis in 1849, so that the

present Canarian species will require a fresh name. And

therefore as the Baron has himself proposed that of

canariensis, I may cite the corrected synonymy as

follows :—

Ocypus canariensis.

Ocypus curtipennis, Woll. [nec Mots. 1849]; Cat. Can.

Col. 567 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 488 (1865). Ocypus

canariensis, Har., Cat. 581 (1868).

Hab.—Canariensis (Can.); in sylvaticis subsylvati-

cisque intermediis, minus frequens.

(Sp. 1348) Ocypus atratus.

It is far from impossible that M. Fauvel’s identification

of this Lanzarotan and Fuerteventuran Ocypus, with the

common Huropean O. ater (vide [7 Abeille, vi. 151), may

be correct; nevertheless since it certainly possesses a

few minute distinctions of its own I will not absolutely

suppress it as a species, seeing that it has already been

established,—though I am quite willing to admit that its

small differential characters (such as they are) may

perhaps be merely indicative of a slight geographical

variety, or race, of the ordinary northern type ; and the

more so, since an accurate re-comparison of its man-

dibles has led me-to believe that I was mistaken in

Atlantic Coleoptera. 301

regarding them as less dentate than those of the O. ater.

So far as I can now detect, it would appear to recede

from the latter in its elytra being a little more coarsely

and remotely punctured, with the suture perceptibly less

raised, and in its head being appreciably shorter (or

more straightly and suddenly truncated behind the eyes

—which are consequently nearer to the basal margin),

with the large additional punctures on either side (pos-

teriorly) shallower and less developed. Its prothorax

also, if anything, is a trifle longer, just perceptibly

narrower (or less downwardly-proauced) towards the

anterior angles, and with the posterior ones perhaps less

completely rounded-off; and Mr. Rye has remarked

(Ent. Month. Mag. iv. 256) that the basal joint of its

middle and posterior tarsi is appreciably thicker and less

elongate.

(Sp. 1350) Ocypus punctatissimus.

As mentioned in the Appendix to my ‘ Coleoptera Hes-

peridum,’ M. Fauvel (1 Abeille, vi. 151) affirms this

Lanzarotan and Fuerteventuran Ocypus to be identical

with the common Huropean QO. cupreus. As already

stated in no less than three separate volumes, I am far

from certain that it may not be in reality a geographical

variety of that species; nevertheless its few distinctive

features are so constant, and pronounced, that I cannot

but regard M. Fauvel’s dictum as (to say the least) un-

necessarily positive. Thus the Canarian specimens are

not only a trifle narrower and darker (or less eeneous)

than British ones now before me, but their head and pro-

thorax are more closely and very much more finely punc-

tured, —the former moreover being appreciably less

developed, and the latter relatively narrower (or more

laterally-compressed): the penultimate segment of their

abdomen, also (at any rate in the male sex), is perhaps

rather more sinuate along its upper hinder-edge. Kraatz,

to whom I sent it for examination when compiling my

Canarian Catalogue, returned it as ‘‘ Ocypus, cupreo

affinis:” yet the Baron Harold, despite my repeated

assertions, and accepting doubtless the dictum of Fauvel,

identifies it (Cat. Col. 582; 1868) with the cupreus.

- Since it appears, however, that an Ocypus (said to be

conspecific with the OQ. ater, Grav.) was published under

302 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

the title of “ punctatissimus” in 1843, it is clear that the

one from Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, if eventually

upheld as distinct from the Huropean cupreus, will

require re-naming; and I would therefore cite its syno-

nymy afresh, as follows :—

Ocypus fortunatarum.

Ocypus punctatissimus, Woll. [nec Duf., Bull. Soc.

Pau, 1843], Cat. Can. Col. 568 (1864); Id., Col. Atl.

489 (1865).

Hab.—Canarienses (Lanz., Fuert.); sub lapidibus,

passim.

Obs.—Species O. cupreo affinis (sec D. Fauvel etiam

zequalis), sed, nisi fallor, aut vere distincta aut varietas

geographica. Differt corpore sub-angustiore, sub-obscu-

riore (minus zneo), necnon capite (sub-minore) protho-

raceque (sub-angustiore, magis lateraliter compresso)

densius ac multo minutius punctatis.

p. 490 (genus PuiLonruus).

(Sp. 1858) Philonthus scybalarius.

It appears necessary to cite this common European

Philonthus (which is so abundant throughout the Ma-

deiran and Canarian archipelagos, and which is found

also at the Azores, Cape Verdes, and even at Ascension)

as the longicornis, Steph.,—that name having the pre-

cedence over Nordmann’s ‘“ seybalarius ;”? moreover

Nordmann appears to have described the species under

two different titles—scybalarius and fuscicormis. Hence

the synonymy will be thus:—

Philonthus longicornis.

Philonthus longicornis (Kby.) Steph., Il. Brit. Ent. v.

237 (1832). Philonthus scybalarius et fuscicornis, Nordm.,

Symb. 94 et 96 (1838). Philonthus varians, Woll. [nec

Payk.], Ins. Mad. 583 (1854). Philonthus scybalarius,

Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 189 (1857) ; Id., Cat. Can. Col. 571

(1864) ; Id., Col. Atl. 492 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto.), et Canariensis

(Lanz., Ten., Gom., Palma, Hierro) ; sub stercore quis-

quiliisque vulgaris.

Atlantic Coleoptera. 303

(Sp. 1859) Philonthus marcidus.

It seems, according to Fauvel (I Abeille, vi. 151), that

this Philonthus, so universal throughout the Canarian

archipelago (but which has not yet been observed in the

Madeiras), is conspecific with the European P. concinnus,

Grav.; so that its synonymy must be cited as follows:—

Philonthus concinnus.

Staphylinus concinnus, Grav., Col. Micropt. 21 (1802).

Staphylinus politus, (?) Brule [nec Grav.], in W. et B.

(Col.) 60 (1838). Philonthus marcidus, Woll., Cat. Can.

Col. 571 (1864); Id., Col. Atl. 492 (1865).

ree Caiatiaes (ins. omnes); ab ora maritima usque

ad 9000’ s. m. ascendens.

(Sp. 1860) Philonthus proximus.

Apparently identical, as first stated by Fauvel (D’A-

beille, vi. 150), with the European P. ventralis, Gray.,—

a species which is very widely, though sparingly, spread

over these Atlantic archipelagos ; having been taken by

myself, and others, in the Madeiran, Canarian, and Cape

Verde Groups. Its synonymy, therefore must be thus

emended :—

Philonthus ventralis.

Staphylinus ventralis, Grav., Col. Micropt. 174 (1802).

Philonthus prowimus, Woll., Cat. Mad. Col. 189 (1857) ;

Id., Cat. Can. Col. 573 (1864) ; Id., Col. Atl. 493 (1865).

Philonthus ventralis, Id., Col. Hesp. 238 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto.), et Canarienses

(Ten., Gom.) ; in stercore bovino necnon sub quisquilis,

late sed parce diffusus.

(Sp. 1864) Philonthus punctipennis.

As mentioned in the Appendix to my ‘ Coleoptera

Hesperidum,’ this Philonthus is identical with the turbi-

dus of Erichson,—a species of a very wide geographical

range, having been taken not only in the Madeiran,

304 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

Canarian, and Cape Verde Groups, but reported also

from Egypt, the Mauritius, Madagascar, and Assam.

Its corrected synonymy must stand thus :—

Philonthus turbidus.

Philonthus turbidus, Erich., Gen. et Spec. Staph. 484

(1839). Philonthus punctipennis, Woll., Cat. Mad. Col.

192 (1857); Id., Cat. Can. Col. 575 (1864); Id., Col.

Atl. 495 (1865). Philonthus turbidus, Id., Col. Hesp.

240 (1867). ‘

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.), et Canarienses (Can.,

Gom.) ; sub quisquliis in humiusculis, rarior.

(Sp. 1867) Philonthus filiformis.

I took a single example of this very rare little Ma-

deiran Philonthus during our late sojourn at “the

Mount”—about 1700 feet above Funchal. It is very

closely allied to the P. tenellus, found in Teneriffe and

Gomera; but, in addition to the distinctive characters

(of smaller eyes, less deeply sculptured elytra, and more

flattened, less coarsely punctured abdominal segments)

which I pointed out at p. 577 of my Canarian Catalogue,

it may be further known from that species by its head

being a little squarer and more developed (being appre-

ciably wider behind the eyes, and more straightly

truncated at the base), by its elytra being less picescent

and perhaps a trifle longer, and by its antennz also

being somewhat obscurer, and just perceptibly less

abbreviate.

Whether the Philonthus which is admitted by Mr.

Crotch into his Azorean list, on the strength of “‘a single

specimen from a mountain-stream in Fayal,” and which

in 1867 he cited (evidently by mistake) as the “ P.

provimus, Woll.” (vide Proc. Zool. Soc. 383), but subse-

quently corrected (teste Godman’s Azores, 91; 1870) into

“ P. filiformis,’ be this Madeiran species, or its near

Canarian ally, I have no means of ascertaining; but in

all probability Mr. Crotch is right in his subsequent

identification, and it will prove to be the Madeiran one. »

Atlantic Coleoptera. 305

p. 497 (genus Lepractinvs).

(Sp. 1374) Leptacinus linearis.

In his Catalogue of Azorean Coleoptera, Mr. Crotch

remarks that ‘‘ Gravenhorst’s name [linearis] for this

species is inapplicable, it having been adopted erroneously

from Olivier.” On referring however to the ‘ Col.

Micropt.’ I cannot perceive anything to indicate that the

title was borrowed from Olivier at all; though since it is

equally certain that there could not be two insects bear-

ing the name “ Staphylinus linearis” at the same time,

and Olivier’s (which pertains to our common European

Xantholinus) had the priority by seven years, it follows

as a matter of course that Gravenhorst’s specific title

must be forfeited, and that we have no choice but to

accept the next one in succession,—v. e. Stephens’

“ pusillus.”” Hence, its synonymy should be thus

corrected :—

Leptacinus pusillus.

Staphylinus linearis, Grav. [nee Oliv. 1795], Col.

Micropt. 43 (1802). Gyrohypnus pusillus, Steph., Il.

Brit. Ent. v. 264 (1832). Leptacinus linearis, Woll.,

Ann. Nat. Hist. vi. 101 (1860) ; Id., Cat. Can. Col. 580

(1864); Id., Col. Atl. 498 (1865). Leptacinus pusillus,

Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 383 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.), et Canarienses (Lanz.,

Ten.) ; inter quisquilias et preecipue sub recremento ad

basin acervorum tritici sparso, hinc inde vulgaris.

p. 498 (genus Orutvs).

(Sp. 1379) Othius philonthoides.

According to Fauvel (I Abeille, vi. 151), this Canarian

Othius is merely a small variety of my O. brachypterus—

equally from the Canarian archipelago; but considering

that Fauvel’s only acquaintance with the two species rests

upon a single example of each which I forwarded to him,

‘and I have myself inspected at any rate a certain number

of them, and pointed-out their exact differential ‘charac-

ters, I must be pardoned if I fail to acknowledge the

necessary indisputability of Fauvel’s dictum. Although

306 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

by no means wishing to pronounce for certain that the

O. philonthoides may not be a depauperated modification

of the brachypterus, my own opinion is that, while belong-

ing to undoubtedly the same geographical type, it is most

decidedly distinct,—it being not only considerably smaller

and with more abbreviated antenne, but likewise less

coarsely sculptured as regards both its elytra and abdo-

men, and with its head even relatively less developed.

p. 504 (genus Scopus).

(Sp. 1890) Scopceus trossulus.

This Canarian Scopus is said by M. Fauvel (L’ Abeille,

vi. 152) to be conspecific with the Mediterranean S. seri-

cans, of Mulsant and Rey; but as I possess no type of

the latter, in order to judge for myself, I have no means

of testing the accuracy of this identification. Assuming

it, however, to be correct (which may, or may not, be the

case), the corrected synonymy will stand thus :—

Scopeeus sericans.

Scopeus sericans, Muls. et Rey, Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon,

165 (1854). Scopeus trossulus, Woll., Cat. Can. Col.

585 (1864) ; Id., Col. Atl. 504 (1865).

Hab.—Canarienses (Fuert., Can., Ten.) ; inter lapillos

per margines aquarum, preecipue in inferioribus ac paulu-

lum elevatis, sese occultans.

p- 905 (genus Lirgocuanis).

(Sp. 1895) Lithocharis fuscula.

I am indebted to Dr. Sharp for correcting an error

into which I had fallen as regards this Lithocharis—which

appears to be the European apicalis, Kraatz, and not the

“‘fuscula.” The mistake was partly due to the insuffi-

ciency of the material from which I was compelled origi-

nally to form an opinion; but during our late visit to

Madeira I met with it abundantly by sifting garden-refuse ©

at the Quinta dos Jasmineiros, on the western outskirts

of Funchal, and the more extensive series thus obtained

renders the distinctive characters of the species at once

Atlantic Coleoptera. 307

evident. Mixed-up however with the few examples of

the apicalis (now before me) which were collected many

years ago in Madeira (I think in the north of the island) ,

are three which manifestly differ from the rest, and which

accord precisely with an English type of the L. ripicola,

Kr., which I have captured in south Devon. This latter

species, consequently, is an addition to the Madeiran list,

and an all the more interesting one perhaps through the

fact of its having been cited by Mr. Crotch from SS.

Miguel in the Azores. In order to prevent, therefore,

the two species [ripicola and apicalis], which at first

sight much resemble each other, from being confounded

inter se, I will subjoin diagnoses of them both, as

follows :—

Ivithocharis ripicola.

L. rufo-ferruginea, nitidiuscula, confertim subtiliter

(capite rugosiore excepto) punctulata et pube grisea

demissa parum dense vestita; capite magno, convexo,

nigrescenti, rugose punctato, oculis parvis; prothorace

rufulo, subquadrato postice angustiore, linea media longi-

tudinali leviore; elytris longioribus; abdomine fusco,

apice dilutiore ; antennis pedibusque rufo-testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. vix 2.

Lithocharis ripicola, Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. u.

715 (1858) ; Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 384 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; inter quisquilias humidas,

minus frequens.

Obs.—L. apicali submajor, subrobustior, subnitidior,

paulo minus dense pubescens, ac sensim rugosius (preeser-

tim in capite majore) punctulata ; prothorace rufescentiore

(minus obscuro), minus quadrato (7. e., antice latiore) , et

in line media leviore ; elytris concoloribus (nec postice

obscuratis) , necnon antennis pedibusque paululum longi-

oribus ac robustioribus.

Lithocharis apicalis.

L. fusco-ferruginea, subopaca, confertissime subtilis-

simeque punctulata et pube grisea demissa dense vestita ;

capite convexo, nigrescenti, oculis parvis; prothorace

308 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

subquadrato; elytris longioribus, postice plus minus ob-

solete obscurioribus; abdomine fusco, apice dilutiore ;

antennis pedibusque subgracilibus, breviusculis, rufo-

testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. circa 13.

Inthocharis fuscula, Woll. [nec Mann.], Ins. Mad. 589

(1854) ; Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 193 (1857). Lithocharis

apicalis, Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. ii. 715 (1858).

Lithocharis fuscula, Woll., Col. Atl. 505 (1865). Litho-

charis apicalis, Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 384

(1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.) ; sub quisquiliis in cultis

inferioribus preecipue degens; etiam in hortis ipsis Fun-

chalensibus interdum abundat.

Obs.—Species L. fuscula, Mann., paulo minor, gracilior,

multo subtilius (densissime) punctulata et densius griseo-

pubescens, capite minore, nigrescentiore, elytris plus

minus inequaliter nebulosis (sc. postice, necnon inter-

dum in regione scutellari, gradatim obscuratis), antennis

pedibusque paulo brevioribus, gracilioribus, clarioribus.

L. ripicola, Kr., subminor, subgracilior, subopacior,

paulo densius pubescens, ac sensim minutius (preesertim

in capite quadratiore, minore) punctulata, prothorace

paululum obscuriore et magis quadrato (7. e. postice

minus evidenter angustato), elytris postice plus minus

nebuloso-obscuratis, necnon antennis pedibusque vix

sub-brevioribus.

(Sp. 1400) Lithocharis tricolor.

Mr. Crotch, in his list of Azorean Coleoptera, has

mentioned (Proc. Zool. Soe. Lond. 384; 1867) that

Marsham’s name “ftricolor”? cannot be retained for this

Lithocharis, seeing that there was already a Staphylinus

tricolor published by Fabricius in 1787, and which applied

moreover to a totally different insect—the well-known

European Xantholinus. Hence there appears to be no

title for this common species (that of ‘‘ melanocephalus”

pertaining to the cognate form with more abbreviated

elytra) until we come to Kraatz’s “ ruficollis;” so that

the corrected synonymy will have to stand thus :—

Atlantic Coleoptera. 309

Tithocharis ruficollis.

Staphylinus tricolor, Mshm. [nee Fab. 1787], Ent.

Brit. 516 (1802). Lithocharis melanocephala, Woll. [nec

Fab.], Ins. Mad. 591 (1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 194

(1857). Lithocharis ruficollis, Kraatz, Nat. der Ins.

Deutsch. ii. 717 (1858). Lithocharis melanocephala,

Woll., Cat. Can. Col. 588 (1864). Inthocharis tricolor,

Id., Col. Atl. 507 (1865). Lithocharis ruficollis, Crotch,

Proc. Zool Lond. 384 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (in Il/heo Chio sola haud observata) ,

et Canarienses (ins. omnes) ; sub lapidibus quisquiliisque

vulgaris.

p- 508 (genus Suntvs).

(Sp. 1405) Sunius angustatus.

This common European Sunius, so widely spread over

the Madeiran archipelago, but which has not yet been

observed at the Canaries, is cited by Mr. Crotch, in his

list of Azorean Coleoptera, under the title “ gracilis,

Payk.,’—accompanied by the remark that ‘ Paykull’s

name angustatus having been pre-occupied, we should

use the one he subsequently proposed for it.” The

species, therefore, must be entered thus :—

Sunius gracilis.

Staphylinus angustatus, Payk. [nec Foure. 1785], Mon.

Staph. Suec. 36 (1789). Staphylinus gracilis, Id., Ibid.

38 (1789). Sunius angustatus, Woll., Ins. Mad. 593

(1854); Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 195 (1857); Id., Col. Atl.

509 (1865). Sunius gracilis, Crotch, Proc. Zool. Soc.

Lond. 384 (1867).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad., Pto. Sto., Bugio); hine inde

sub lapidibus necnon inter quisquilias, preecipue in inter-

mediis.

p- 511 (genus Stents).

(Sp. 1415) Stenus fulvescens.

According to the late Catalogue of Gemminger and

Harold, a Stenus (from India) was published, by Mots-

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—part mu. (may.) Y

310 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

choulsky (Bull. Mose. iv. 515), under the name of fulves-

cens, in 1857—the very same year in which my own

species was brought out bearing the same title; so that,

manifestly, it is necessary that either one or the other of

them should be re-named. Without stating his reasons

for the selection, the Baron Harold has consequently pro-

posed for the Madeiran species the title ‘ Wollaston ;”

and its corrected synonymy, therefore, will stand as fol-

lows :—

Stenus Wollastoni.

Stenus Heeri, var. 8, Woll., Ins. Mad. 600 (1854).

Stenus fulvescens, Id. [nec Mots. 1857], Cat. Mad. Col.

198 (1857); Id., Col. Atl. 518 (1865). Stenus Wollastont,

Har., Cat. 641 (1868).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in sylvaticis humidis edi-

tioribus, sub foliis quisquiliisque parce latens.

p. 914 (genus Bueptus).

(Sp. 1418) Bledius januvianus.

As stated in my ‘Coleoptera Hesperidum,’ this large

Bledius, which I met with in Lanzarote of the Canarian

archipelago (and subsequently, also, in 8S. Vicente of the

Cape Verdes), has been identified by M. Fauvel with

Erichson’s B. vitulus—a species recorded from Arabia.

Not possessing a type of Erichson’s species from which

to form an independent opinion, I have no means of test-

ing M. Fauvel’s determination; but assuming it to be

correct, the following change in the synonymy will have

to be made :—

Bledius vitulus.

Bledius vitulus, Erich., Gen. et Spec. Staph. 761 (1839).

Bledius januvianus, Woll., Cat. Can. Col. 593 (1864);

Id., Col. Atl. 514 (1865). Bledius vitulus, Id., Col.

Hesp. 253 et 280 (1867).

Hab.—Canarienses (Lanz.); ad margines lacus ejus

salini ‘‘ Januvio” dicti a meipso parce deprehensus.

Atlantic Coleoptera. dll

p. 518 (genus TRoGoPHL@vs) .

(Sp. 1434) Trogophleus exilis.

This little Trogophleus, found both in the Madeiran

and Canarian archipelagos, is said by Fauvel (17 Abeille,

vi. 152) to be conspecific with the European 7’. pusillus,

Gray. ; and I think perhaps that this conclusion may be

accepted as probable. Assuming, therefore, M. Fauvel’s

identification to be correct, the synonymy of the species

must stand thus :—

Trogophleus pusillus.

Aleochara pusillus, Grav., Col. Micropt. 78 (1802).

Trogophleus pusillus, Kr., Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. 11. 880

(1858). Trogophleus ewxilis, Woll., Ann. Nat. Hist. vi.

105 (1860); Id., Col. Atl. 519 et Append. 75 (1865).

Hab.—Maderenses( Mad.) , et Canarienses (T’en., Gom.);

hine inde in humidis.

p- 522 (genus Homatium).

(Sp. 1440( Homalium sculpticolle.

Inthe Appendix to my ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ I men-

tioned that this Canarian Homaliwm had been identified

by M. Fauvel with the European H. Allardii of Fairmaire.

There was clearly however some mistake in Fauvel’s

determination, for the H. Allardii is in reality more akin

to the Madeiran and Canarian H. ocellatum, and has

scarcely anything in common with the sculpticolle. The

latter, as stated elsewhere, finds very much nearer allies

in the common H. riparium and fossulatum of more

northern latitudes. Hence, the note (above alluded to)

in the Appendix of the ‘ Coleoptera Hesperidum’ must

be cancelled.

(Sp. 1441) Homaliwm ocellatum.

After what I have just mentioned under the preceding

species, it will be seen that it is the H. ocellatum (not

the sculpticolle as asserted by Fauvel) which so nearly

resembles the European H. Allardii; nevertheless it

would appear that even the ocellatum cannot be abso-

¥2Z

312 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on

lutely referred to the latter; for Mr. Rye, alluding to

the double mistake of Fauvel, and after a very careful

inspection of my type of the ocellatum (now in the British

Museum), adds that the H. ocellatum, when compared

with the Allardi, “appears to be lighter, shorter, and

broader, with bright yellow ocelli and clear testaceous

legs, and with a more transverse thorax—of which the

sides are more rounded and more contracted behind, and

the hinder angles more prominent (the fovea there being

deeper), with rather shorter and less parallel elytra,

which are less strongly and scarcely rugosely punctured,

and with the abdomen not so dull, but with evident

scattered punctuation.” And Mr. Rye then goes on to

observe that ‘if, nevertheless, in spite of these discre-

pancies, Mr. Wollaston’s imsect is to be considered

identical with the H. Allardii, it will not disturb any

references,—for the ocellatwm was described in the ‘ In-

secta Maderensia’ in 1854, and Fairmaire’s species in the

French ‘Annales’ for 1859.” [Vide Ent. Month. Mag.

iv. 236. ]

(Sp. 1443) Homalium clavicorne.

This very distinct Madeiran Homalium, although so

greatly attached to the rotten wood of the decaying

Huphorbias, does not appear to be (as I had supposed)

peculiar to that singular race of plants; for during our

residence at ‘‘ the Mount” (about 1700 feet above Fun-

chal), in the winter and spring of 1870, I took it in

tolerable profusion out of the soft putrid stems of the

fragrant Cestrum vespertinum, known as the “ Béllas-

noites” by the Portuguese inhabitants of the island.

Still, I believe it to be normally a Huphorbia-infesting

species—for the “ Béllas-nédites” is not indigenous in

Madeira, and it is hkewise reported by Mr. Crotch (Proc.

Zool. Soc. Lond. 385; 1867) to have been met with

abundantly “in Huphorbia-stems in Flores,” the most

western island of the Azorean archipelago.

After species 1444, add the following :-—

Homalium concinnum.

H. elongatum, subdepressum, nitidum, (abdomine

excepto) minutissime vix pubescens; capite (triangulari,

Atlantic Coleoptera. 313

nigro) prothoraceque (omnino, sed presertim in limbo,

dilutiore) rugose punctatis; elytris ineequaliter piceo-tes-

taceis, rugose punctatis (punctis obsolete longitudinaliter,

quasi in strigis irregularibus, dispositis) ; abdomine

multo subtilius punctulato, sed grossius pubescente ;

antennis (brevibus) pedibusque testaceis.

Long. corp. lin. circa 14.

Variat colore plus minus obscuriore, corpore interdum

omnino piceo-nigro.

Staphylinus concinnus, Mshm., Ent. Brit. 510 (1802).

Omalium concinnum, Erich., Gen. et Spec. Staph. 886

(1839); Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. 11. 991 (1858).

Hab.—Maderenses (Mad.); in granariis ad 8. Antonio

da Serra parce lectum.

A few examples of this European Homaliwm were taken

by my wife in a granary at S. Antonio da Serra, during

our sojourn at Madeira in the spring of 1870, as also by

sifting rubbish in an old outhouse adjoining it. I have

little doubt therefore that the species (which was found

in company with various Oryptophagi, Latridii, and other

insects of like habits) has been introduced into the island

from more northern latitudes. And this seems the more

probable, since I have captured the H. concinnum under

somewhat similar circumstances (namely amongst the

refuse around the base of hay and corn-stacks) in En-

gland. It is very closely allied to the (equally European)

HI. deplanatum, but is, inter alia, a little brighter (being

less appreciably pubescent) and more coarsely punctured,

with its antenne and elytra a trifle shorter,—the punc-

tures of the latter having a tendency, moreover, to arrange

themselves in irregular longitudinal strigze.

p. 524 (genus Mecarrurvs).

(Sp. 1446) Megarthrus longicornis.

Although so universal throughout the Canarian Group,

I had until lately considered this Megarthrus as some-

what scarce at Madeira. But during our late sojourn in

that island we met with it abundantly at “the Mount”

(from about 1700 to 1900 feet above Funchal), by sifting

fallen leaves and rubbish, and likewise, though in less

profusion, at S. Antonio da Serra. It would perhaps

314 Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston on Atlantic Coleoptera.

have been more correct if, in the ‘Coleoptera Atlanti-—

dum,’ I had compared it with the Huropean M. denticollis.

Indeed Mr. Rye, who a short time ago had the kindness

to give it a very careful examination, remarks ‘‘ Not so

near to the ‘ M. sinuaticollis’ as to the denticollis; but its

long thin antennee, very remote punctation, and weak

superficial male characters (as regards the legs) readily

separate it from that species. There are certainly no

European members of the genus in De Marseul’s last

Catalogue that will suit it.”

( 315 )

VIII. Ona new genus and species of Coleoptera belong-

ing to the family Lucanide, from the Sandwich

Islands. By CHas. O. WatEeRHOUSE.

[Read 20th March, 1871.}

Amone some insects lately sent to the British Museum

from Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, by Mr. Harper Pease,

were two specimens of a small, dull-black coleopterous

insect belonging to the family Lucanide which was new

to the collection, and is apparently new to science.

The species is interesting not only from its somewhat

peculiar form, but from the isolated locality from which

it comes ; Honolulu being 2081 miles from the nearest

continent, that is, from San Francisco in California.

The insect is, however, evidently most closely allied to

Sclerostomus Bacchus, which comes from Chili, distant

from Honolulu 5902 miles.

Its short broad form, and much rounded elytra, together

with the extreme brevity of the metasternum, and the

absence of spines from all the tibiz, except the interme-

diate pair in the male, will at once separate it from all

the Lucanide hitherto known.

I propose to call it Apterocyclus.

APTEROCYCLUS, gen. nov.

Mandibles in both sexes short, very slightly curved,

furnished with a single tooth on the inner-side close to

the base; clypeus very wide, with the front margin very

nearly straight ; mentum semicircular; second and third

joints of the antennz subquadrate, of nearly equal size,

the fourth to seventh jomts gradually becoming shorter,

the three apical joints spongy, and forming a slight club ;

eyes in part divided by the canthus; all the tibize unarmed,

except the intermediate pair in the male, which are fur-

nished with a single minute submedial tooth; metaster-

num extremely short.

Apterocyclus Honoluluensis, sp. nov.

Brevis, subdepressus, ater; capite lato, antice truncato ;

mandibulis parvis, unidentatis, punctatis; thorace capite

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PaRT 11. (MAY.)

316 Mr. Chas. O. Waterhouse on Apterocyclus.

latiore, postice omnino rotundato; scutello parvo; elytris

subrotundatis (3) vel rotundatis (9); metasterno brevis-

simo, nitido; tibiis anticis posticisque inermis, intermedius

unidenticulatis (3) vel inermis (¢).

3. Long. lin. 7; lat. elytrorum lin. 3.

@. Long. lin. 8; lat. elytrorum lin. 4¢.

Short, somewhat depressed, sooty-

black ; the head broad, shghtly angu-

lar at the sides, above very minutely

granular, sparingly and indistinctly

punctured about the eyes, more dis-

tinctly punctured towards the front

margin; canthus slender; clypeus

wide, nearly straight in front, only

very slightly produced in the centre

in the male; there is a tendency to a reddish colour at the

base of the mandibles, and on the canthus. The thorax is

distinctly broader than the head, the front margin bi-

sinuate; the sides are very little rounded, the whole of the

posterior part of the thorax is semicircular ; the upper

surface is very minutely granular, sparingly and indis-

tinctly punctured. LElytra in the male a trifle nar-

rower than the thorax, narrowest at the base, gradually

becoming broader to the apical two-thirds, the apex

completely rounded; each elytron presents two indistinct

longitudinal impressions; the suture near the base is

rather less opaque than the other portions of the elytra,

and is sparingly and minutely punctured; in the female

the elytra are a little broader than the thorax, and much

more rounded at the sides. The anterior tibiz are

elongate-triangular, unarmed; the intermediate tibiz are

sub-cylindrical, simple in the female, and furnished with

a minute sub-medial tooth on the outside in the male,

the apices on the outer-side in both sexes simple; the

posterior tibiee are sub-cylindrical, unarmed, bowed out-

wards in the female, nearly straight in the male. The

metasternum is polished ; extremely short, so that the

bases of the intermediate and posterior pairs of legs are

scarcely further apart than the posterior legs are from

each other.

Hab.—Honolulu, Sandwich Islands.

Sent to the British Museum by Harper Pease, Esq.,

with the note “‘ Mountains of Kanoi; only two found.”

(317 )

IX. An Examination of the arrangement of Macro-Lepi-

doptera introduced in England by Mr. Doubleday,

and a suggestion as tu its origin; with some

strictures upon synonymic lists. By W. Arnon

Lewis.

[Read 8rd April, 1871.]

THIs paper is concerned with the Macro-Lepidoptera. Its

object is to investigate the order of the groups; or (more

accurately) to examine what is found upon the order of

the groups in the entomological publications now usually

consulted. Incidentally to this inquiry, a few reflections

will suggest themselves upon the essentials of scientific

authorship ; and some observations will be offered upon

the degrees of respect to be conceded to writers on ento-

mological science.

The Macro-Lepidoptera are, according to the arrange-

ment as I believe in general use in this country, divided.

into ten groups; the names and order of the groups as

usually recognized being as follows:—Ist, Diwrni; 2nd,

Nocturni; 3rd, Geometree; 4th, Drepanule ; 5th, Pseudo-

Bombyces; 6th, Noctue; 7th, Deltoides; 8th, Aventie ;

9th, Pyrales; 10th, Crambi. I say this is the order

usually adopted in this country, because, though I am

not acquainted with any of the leading collections, yet

all those which have come to the hammer of recent

years (and many of them had the sanction of well-known

names,) have been so arranged. Moreover, all the ex-

change lists printed for use by the active collectors

adopt this order, as do the lists of captures, etc., in the

entomological journals. We shall almost immediately

have to trace, to some extent, the steps by which this

arrangement came to be introduced: but it will be well

to state concisely in what particulars it most conspi-

cuously differs from its predecessors. It differs mainly

in having no group Sphinges, and no group Bombyces,

but in place of those having a group Nocturni, and a

eroup Pseudo-Bombyces only. It differs also im the loca-

tion of the groups Geometre and Noctue, whose place in

the order is wholly altered, and in the erection of a

family into a separate group Drepanule. I hope to

discuss presently these different points; but I wish at

TRANS. ENT. SoC. 1871.—PaRT II. (AUGUST.) z

318 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

once to suggest a question: Is there anywhere in print a

justification or explanation of this order of arrangement ?

And as developments of this question, a few others: Has

the group Nocturni ever had even characters assigned

it? Has the position of the Geometrae and the Pseudo-

Bombyces been ever explained? Is the arrangement of

the Noctwce consonant with the position of that group ?

Have the names Nocturni, Drepanule, Pseudo-Bombyces,

as applied to these insects, any sanction? Upon these

questions, and others which arise, I shall endeavour, in

turn, to throw a little hight.

It will, however, be best to observe here, that one

aim I principally have in this paper, is to sift the history

of the so-called group Pseudo-Bombyces ; against which

I charge that it is not a group at ali; that if a group its

position in the order is erroneous; that its name is

wrong; and, that the group owes its creation to certain

exigencies of a fortuitous kind. In particular, and

finally, I charge as a grave offence to science, that no

justification of the group, nor of its name or position, was

ever offered by its authors, and that it has been intro-

duced sub silentio in a mere labelling list.

It is necessary to prepare the ground for our inquiry

into the present arrangement of the Lepidoptera, by

noticing briefly the system in use before its introduc-

tion. ‘This can be done shortly, because I am primarily

concerned with the order of arrangement alone; the

points at which authors have drawn the line between

group and group not being especially important at this

stage; and the internal classification of each having

nothing to do, at present, with the matter.

The order of Linnmus is the basis of every system save

the one I am to examine to-night; and, without any

serious deviation, 1t was (so far as I am aware) followed

by all the world until the year 1859, when this new

order saw the light. The Linnzan divisions of the Lepi-

doptera are familiar to everyone, but it is necessary

to notice them here once for all. His three primary

sections, then, are Papilio, Sphinx, and Phalena: and

his divisions of the section Phalena (which correspond

to our groups) are as follows: Ist, Attacus, and 2nd,

Bombyx ; 3rd, Noctua; 4th, Geometra; 5th, Pyralis.

Attacus bemg now classed as a part of Bombyx, and

not interfering with the order in any way, it is accu-

Groups of the Lepidoptera, 319

rate to state shortly, that the Linnzan order was Bom-

byx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis. I need not state what

descriptions of species composed each Linnzan group;

but it may be worth while to mention that the species

of the so-called Pseudo-Bombyces known to Linnzus, are

described in the ‘‘Systema Nature” as Bombyces, and

placed with the rest of that group between Sphinx and

Noctua. The Linnean order is completely intelligible ;

so intelligible indeed that, I believe, almost anyone

would, without a book at all, of his own accord, arrange

the Lepidoptera in this order. The largest species, the

Sphinges, were put first; after them the largest moths

that were left, Attacus and Bombyz«, the smaller division

coming second. Next all the remaining moths with

stout bodies, Noctua; after these, the slender bodies in

their order of size, viz., Geometra first, then Pyralis. As

I have said, this order was the simplest imaginable. It

is the most matter of course thing in the world to put

the biggest moth at the head of your collection, and the

little ones at the end. Linnzeus placed the largest group

at the head of his arrangement, and the smaller groups

in their order of size after it. I should be very sorry to

be understood as placing the Linnzan arrangement on a

low ground. It is, I think, a natural arrangement, to

place the group containing the largest species first, and

those containing the smallest species last, and, unless

some close affinities are outraged, it is, I think, a natural

arrangement to place all the groups, from the first to the

last, in the order of size of the species. It is certainly the

most striking of the objections to the new arrangement, that

it takes you straight from the largest Bombyces into the

Geometre, from those slender insects back again into the

large Bombyces, and then .after another spell of stout-

bodied moths, drops you finally into the small ones. The

Linnean groups with the Linnean names, and in the

Linnean order, were adopted almost universally, down

to the year 1840, a date from which their uniform accu-

racy seems, as we shall find, to have been occasionally

canvassed. Fabricius followed the Linnean order, and

used the Linnean groups; so did the famous authors of

the Vienna Catalogue; and so have followed Hiibner,

Haworth, Ochsenheimer, Treitschke, Duponchel, Ste-

phens, and, with special exceptions, Latreille; and so in

recent times, Boisduval, Herrich-Schiiffer, Westwood,

Horsfield, Lederer, Staudinger, and even Doubleday.

320 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

All this array of authors of first-rate repute followed

the order which, by the new arrangement of 1859, it was

sought to re-model. The works of a few of the number

must receive a brief consideration; but I will first and

once for all present this view, which must occur to

anyone who reflects much on the subject. The names

of the Lepidopterists just mentioned at least equal in

respectability any known in entomology. ‘Those authors

of different times and nationalities, with minds of dif-

ferent bents, as zealous for science as at least their suc-

cessors, have proceeded to their conclusions by different

and original methods; and their concurrence in one order

of arrangement must be accepted as most notable. I

will not enlarge on this view, because it is one which

everybody can appreciate the moment it is presented, but

I will merely recall here some facts showing its perti-

nence. Itisacommon-place to say that the classification

of genera may depend on a great variety of details; all

entomologists know that a genus may be defined by the

characters of its larva, pupa, or imago, and by (1) the

structure, or (2) the habits of either of the three. The

differential characters in the perfect insect for instance,

may be found in the palpi, in the neuration of the wings,

in the legs or in the antenne, &c.; and a variety of

systems have been devised for classifying msects from

some one or more of these characters. Thus Linnzeus him-

self, after the wings, considered the antenne of chief

importance, and the order which he originated was

arrived at from those characters; the Vienna Catalogue

was founded entirely on the differences of the pre-

paratory states, and that arrangement again is the same

as that arrived at by Linneus. [Jabricius used as the

basis of his classification the characters of the mouth-

parts; he also agrees in the Linnean order. Latreille

lastly with the ‘‘ eclectic” system which he devised, also

agreed in that order, though with a variation presently

to be mentioned. Therefore, I repeat, the concurrence

among these and the other first-rate writers is a very

significant fact. There is no such thing in my mind as

a suggestion, that these authors may not all have been

wrong; but the fact of their concurrence would prompt

anyone to examine narrowly a proposal of radical changes,

and, one would have hoped, would stimulate the proposers

of changes to submit their reasons for them to our judg-

ment.

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 321

Denis and Schiffermiller, and some others of the authors

named, supply some materials which it is as well to use

up before leaving our consideration of their system.

First, then, in the Vienna Catalogue the groups Sphina,

Bombyx, Noctua, and Geometra are regularly arranged in

sub-divisions, which are very serviceable as illustrating

the connection (in the view of the authors) of each group

with its predecessor or successor in order. The affinity

of Bombyx to Sphinx is illustrated in this way; Bombyx

has for its first section Sphingiformes: while the same

relation is illustrated in like manner, thus :—Noctua begins

with Bombyciformes and concludes with Semi-Geometre,

the Geometre again beginning with Semi-Noctuales. This

illustration of the affinity of each group to its predecessor,

bears out very satisfactorily the correctness of the Lmnean

order; and we shall find shortly that several later authors

have seen the affinities in the same light.

It is necessary to examine with some particularity the

arrangement of Larrerttx, not only because he is the

greatest systematist who has revised the Linnean arrange-

ment, and was the first to propose any deviation from

it; but also because he did sub-divide the Bombyces, and

did in one of his works apply to one of his sub-divisions

the name Pseudo-Bombyces. Uatreille’s ‘‘ Genera Crus-

taceorum et Insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in

familias disposita,” was concludedin 1809. The arrange-

ment followed here he adhered to with variations in his

other works. He divided all the Lepidoptera into Diurna,

Crepuscularia, and Nocturna, which divisions exactly

corresponded with the Linnean divisions Papilio, Sphinz,

Phalena. His first family (corresponding to our group)

of the Nocturna is Bombycites, cluding the present

genera Hepialus, Zenzera, Saturnia, Lasiocampa, Bombyz,

Oerura, Laria, Limacodes, Psyche. Of the Bombycites,

however, he classes a number of genera under a sub-

heading as “ Bombycites Legitime ; les vraies Bombycites,”

namely, Bombyx, Lasiocampa, etc., and (what is important)

Cerura, Pygera, and Clostera. In order to show the

bearing of this circumstance, I may mention here, that

these very three genera, Cerura, Pygera, and Clostera

“vraies Bombycites” of Latreille, are (with others) now,

by the new classification, separated from the group, and

called in terms “ Pseudo-” or “false” Bombyces. Latreille’s

first group of Nocturna being the Bombycites, his next 3s

yy Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

Noctuo-Bombycites, mcluding Arctia with its allies, Lithosia

with its allies, and all the Vinee; and his third group is

Noctuclite. His fourth group following on the Noctue-

lite is Phalenites, being all the Geometre. After the

Phaleiites come the Pyralites. Now this arrangement

of Latreille’s follows closely the Linnean arrangement,

except only in placing the Tinece between Bombyx and

Noctua. ‘The names and order of his groups, remark,

are Bombycites, Noctuo-Bombycites, Noctucelite, Phalenites,

Pyralites. This shows no deviation at all from the Lin-

nean arrangement; but it is the fact, that on examina-

tion we find the group Noctuo-Bombycites to include the

Tinee. In his “Considérations générales sur ordre

naturel,” etc. (published in 1810) Latreille observes

almost identical divisions, and in the introductory portion

(p. 81) he states that the Lithosiw are the connecting

link between Bombyx and Noctua, and he places the T'inece

with the Lithosie on account of their affinity to them.

In his volume of Cuvier’s ‘‘ Familles naturelles du Régne

Animal,” (edition 1825) , Latreille’s first group of Nocturna

is Bombycites. His second takes the name Pseudo- Bombyces

(against which in a parenthesis the name ‘ Noctuo- Bom-

bycites”’ is printed, apparently as a synonym). ‘Third

come the T%neites ; fourth again the Noctuclites ; but fifth

here, the TYortrices (including Pyrales); then sixth, the

Phalenites ; seventh, Crambites. The thing chiefly notice-

able in these arrangements of Latreille is, so far as our

inquiry is concerned, that throughout, his order of the

groups we are discussing, is Sphinw, Bombyx, Noctua,

Geometra. There is no suggestion that it was proper

to bring Geometra next to Bombyx; nor to separate the

species of Bombyx by placing Geometra between them ;

nor to place Geometra before Noctua; nor indeed to

deviate at all, so far as these groups are concerned,

from the Linnean order. We do find, however, that

Latreille used the greatest freedom in altermg the posi-

tion of the groups where that appeared desirable, and

moved about at his pleasure the Pyralides, Tortrices, and

Tinece.

We must now turn to the group Pseudo-Bombyces,

first used by Latreille in his last work, the ‘Régne Ani-

mal. His Pseudo-Bombyces include Cossus and Zenzera,

Dicranura, Platypteryx, Notodonta, Orgyia, Limacodes,

Callimorpha, Arctia, Chelonia, or in fact by far the

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 323

greater number of species in the original Bombyces.

It is important not to overlook this fact, that here

we have Dicranura and Notodonta, which are included

in the Pseudo-Bombyces of the new arrangement, also

included in a group of Latreille bearing the same

name. This is, I think, the nearest approach to a

justification of the new arrangement which has appeared

in print, and it is, therefore, important to allow it its full

influence. How slender a justification it in truth proves

we shall very shortly find.

The new group Pseudo-Bombyces takes away twenty-

seven species, and separates them from all the other

Bombyces. They are placed so far away from all the

other Bombyces, that we are bound to believe the authors

of the arrangement discover in those species a complete

difference of structure, or other striking dissimilarity,

from the remainder of the Bombyciform genera. That

should be, of course, the sole rationale of the creation of

the group.

Now, that being the case, what justification or support

does the new division of the Bombyces receive from the

fact, that Latreille had before effected a subdivision of

the group? Latreille’s group, Pseudo-Bombyces, so far

from isolating at a distance from the Bombyces only

twenty-seven species, itself includes the bulk of the Bom-

byces ; and, what is most important, groups together, as

allied with the separated genera, many others from which

the new arrangement takes them away. Latreille does

call Dicranura and Notodonta Pseudo-Bombyces ; but he

also calls Pseudo-Bombyces the genera Cossus, Arctia,

Orgyia, and many more, considering all these to bear: to

the true Bombyces the same relation as is borne by Dicra-

mura aud Notodonta, and presenting them in close

relationship with Dicranura and Notodonta in the same

subdivision. Latreille’s arrangement of the species in fact

strengthens the case against the new group Pseudo-Bom-

byces ; and though he called some genera by that name,

they were not placed as the new group is placed, nor are

they, as a group, distinguished by the same characters.

But, in truth, Latreille, in his last work, divided the

Bombyces on a very simple plan, which is found stated at

p. 472 of his vol. of the ‘‘ Régne Animal.” His group

Bombycites is confined to those species ‘dont les ailes

inférieures n’ont point de frein,’ and that is the dis-

tinction by which he was guided.

324 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

There remains his placing of the Pyrales (in this last

work) next after the Noctuce and before the Geometre.

This is clearly a step in the direction of the new arrange-

ment, and it remains as some testimony in its favour ;

but Latreille considered Pyralis as a division of Vortriz ;

and Crambus, which he admitted to be separate, he

placed after Geometra (as im the Linnean order), away

from Pyralis altogether : so the new arrangement Noctua,

the Deltoides, Pyralis, Crambus, Tortriz, obtains very small

countenance from Latreille.

Inow leave this author, whose various classifications, the

work of a vigorous and intrepid systematist, all strongly

favour the coherency of the Bombyciform genera; and

the order of arrangement, Sphinx, Bombyx, Noctua,

Geometra.

Hiibner’s arrangement also affords a contrast in the

classification of the Bombyces, to the new one now in

vogue. One of his three sections is termed “ Vere”

(or ‘‘the true”); and this section includes Clostera and

Diloba, two genera of the new ‘“‘ Pseudo-” Bombyces.

The remainder of the species of this so-called group

Hiibner classes under the name Sphingoides, and places

at the head of the Bombyces following the Sphinges.

Now, anything in the same class of natural objects more

dissimilar than Sphinx and Geometra I have never read of.

Hiibner considered Notodonta as allied to Sphinw: the

promoters of the new arrangement appear to consider it

allied to Geometra. Hubner, also like the authors of the

Vienna Catalogue, illustrates the affinities between the

groups by using appropriate names; thus, besides the

Bombyces commencing with the Sphingoides, he makes the

Noctuce commence with Bombycoides, and end with Semi-

Geometree, etc.

There are but two other writers before 1840, whose

works it is necessary to notice (one of them an English-

man), Dr. Horsfield and M. Guenée. A very few words

will express all that need here be said about both.

Dr. Horsfield plans out the Macro-Lepidoptera, follow-

ing the Linnzan order without the smallest deviation.

His Bombycide include, of course, Pygera, Cerura,

Notodonta. He has no group Pseudo-Bombyces. The

fifth and last section of his Noctuidae is Senw-Geometire

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 325

(as in the Vienna Catalogue and Hiibner’s “ Verzeich-

niss”’”). The first of his sections of Phalenide is also

Semi-Noctuales. His order is Bombycide, Noctuide,

Phalenide, Pyralide.

M. Guenée, in 1837, contributed to the Annals of the

Entom. Soc. of France, the first of a series of papers on

the classification of the Noctuélides; and as everyone

would expect, he makes the group, if I may use the

expression, “ face towards” the Bombyces at the begin-

ning, and towards the Geometre at the end. He places

first the tribe Bombycoidi to illustrate the affinity to

Bombyz, and last the tribe Noctuo-Phalenidi to illustrate

the affinity to Geometra (or Phalena), both names being

the names of Dr. Boisduval—an arrangement which in

1841, indeed, when he contributed a revision of his

classifications, M. Guenée confirmed and re-published.

Thus up to the year 1840, at all events, we have found

no trace of a disposition to alter the place of the Bombyces,

Noctuce, or Geometre. On the contrary, all the writers

have preserved the three groups in their original order,

and we have found German, English, and French authors

fortifymg this arrangement, and supplying in their

nomenclature additional illustrations of its propriety.

Two authors also, as if to secure by anticipation the

recognition of certain species as Bombyces, have named

those Bombyces “vere” and “ legitime,” which it is now

sought to call ‘‘ Pseudo-” Bombyces.

We shall still find (starting from the year 1840) that

no matter where the divisions were made, the order

. observed was, for some time, substantially the same.

One of the best known methodical lists is Boisduval’s

“‘ Genera et Index Methodicus Europzeorum Lepidopte-

rorum.” The second edition of this work was published

in 1840. His arrangement is very simple, and his division

of the Lepidoptera into Rhopalocera and Heterocera is

known everywhere. Boisduval separates the three first

groups of the Heterocera into tribes, and it is in his

arrangement that we first miss the use of the appellations

Sphine and Bombyx as the names of groups, a feature

which distinguishes also the new arrangement. To the

families constituting these groups he gives, it seems, no

collective name, merely heading the division “ Larve

326 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

progressoriz”’ (see p. 39). This is the only important

change introduced by Boisduval’s Index. In all other

respects it closely follows the Linnean arrangement.

The Micro-Lepidoptera were the subject of a continuation

of the “Index” undertaken by M. Guenée. The notice-

able feature of that arrangement is the insertion of the

Pyrales and Crambi, after Tortriz and before Tinea, an

arrangement which has now, it seems, no apologists.

In the year 1840, appeared Mr. Newman’s “ Familiar

Introduction to the History of Insects; bemg a new

edition of the grammar of Entomology,” one book of

which is devoted entirely to an exposition of the author’s

views upon classification (Classif. Lepidop. pp. 209-215).

His order is—including remark, Butterflies and Moths all

in one:—lst, ‘‘ Hawk-moths or Sphingites,” mcluding all

the Sphingina, except the genus T’rochilium of Stainton,

the small clearwings: 2nd, “ Skippers, or Hesperides ;”

3rd, “ Butterflies ;” 4th, ‘Loopers, slender-bodies, or

Geometrites ;” 5th, ‘ Half-loopers, or Phytometrites,” Plu-

sia, Acontia, Hrastria, Phytometra, and the rest; 6th,

«Full-bodied moths, or Noctuites;” 7th, ‘ Millers, or

Arctiites,” Acronycta, Spilosoma, Arctia, Hypercompa,

Lithosia, Hypogymna, Laria, Orgyia; 8th, “ Eggars,

or Bombycites,” Hriogaster, Odonestis, Gastropacha, Lasio-

campa; 9th, “ Emperor-moths, or Phalenites,” Saturnia

carpint alone; 10th, ‘‘Prominents, or Notodontides,”

Endromis, (!) Cerura, Stauropus, Platypteryx, Cilix, Noto-

donta, Pygera, Clostera; 11th, ‘‘ Wood-eaters, or Xyleu-

tites,’? Hepialus, Xyleutes, Zenzera; 12th, ‘ Clearwings,

or Algeriites,’ Algeria; 13th, “ Burnet-moths, or Glau-

copites,” Zygena, Ino; 14th, “ Pearl-moths, or Pyralites ;”

15th, ‘‘ Veener-moths, or Crambites.” .

In the preface (p. ix) Mr. Newman gives his own view

of his own arrangement. ‘The Fourth Book, entitled

Classification of Insects, may be charged with being too

original; it may be said that the author should have

given the views and arrangements of others in preference

to his own. He would ask, whose system was he to select?

That his own is the most simple, and the most readily

understood, no one will deny ;” and he adds (two pages

later) “‘it would be false modesty for the author to pre-

tend blindness to the fact, that the humble efforts of his

pen and pencil have been unusually successful,’ &c. It

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 327

rather takes away one’s breath to be told this strange

looking arrangement is ‘‘the most simple,” but as it is

not accompanied by a word of reason, we may suppose

Mr. Newman really thought it was. It is unfortunate

that this particular ‘‘ effort” was not so successful as to

prevent its being abandoned by its author ; for it seems

to be the case that, neither he nor any other entomologist

ever followed the scheme.

One remarks in this arrangement that, though the

Sphinges are cut up and separated widely, the Bombyces,

Noctuce, and Geometre are all kept together, and, while

the arrangement is chiefly noticeable for its eccentric treat-

ment of the Sphinges, it is im other respects nearly the

Linnean arrangement read backwards. In particular, Mr.

Newman, like Denis and Schiffermiller, Hibner, and Hors-

field, connects Noctua with Geometra by means of Plusia

and its allies; and lke Hiibner, he places Notodonta as

far away from Geometra as it could well be. No one, so

far, has connected Geometra with Noctua by means of

Notodonta, the great feat of the new arrangement.

Also in 1840, was published Professor Westwood’s

* Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects,”

a work (if I may be allowed to say so) characterized by

wide learning and very close study. The author pro-

fesses his inability to offer a satisfactory classification of

the Lepidoptera in main tribes or groups, but, using

only large family divisions, he adopts exactly the Lin-

newan order, following Latreille and Stephens in making

Inthosia the connecting link between Bombyx and Noctua.

Mr. Westwood’s book supplies numerous expressions

of opinion, and various reasons, in favour of the Linnzwan

arrangement, of which I will reproduce a few in his own

words. He speaks of “the transition from the Noctuide

to the Geometride, so beautifully effected by Catocala,

Plusia, and other half-loopers, as their larvee are termed,

and Ophiusa, Hrastria, &c.” (Westw. Introd. ii. p. 363.)

Again (p. 370), ‘ there appears to be but little relation in

the imago state (between A/geria and Zenzera), either in

respect of their habits or structure, so that it may be ques-

tioned how far the relation is more than one of analogy ;

at all events, I hesitate as to the propriety of placing the

Aigerie in the same natural group with Hepialus and

Cossus.” I need hardly remind Lepidopterists that one

328 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

of the features of the new arrangement is to place newt

together those two genera in the group called Nocturnt.

Again (p. 385), “I find it impossible to draw a line

between the types which form Stephens’ two families,

Notodontide and Arctiide. The structure of the mouth

will not assist in the inquiry, because Pygera, Cerura,

&c., amongst the Notodontide have the maxille, and even

the maxillary palpi, developed as strongly as in Spilosoma

and Arctia, whilst there is as great a variation in the

transformations of the genera of either group as there

is between the respective species of the two groups;

hence I have followed Latreille in keeping them under

one family.” Those genera which Mr. Westwood felt

constrained to include in one family are now, by the new

arrangement, separated by hundreds of species, includ-

ing the whole group of Geometre. And again (p. 363),

“Tt seems unquestionable that Sphine (or the hawk-

moths), Bombyx (or the feather-horned full bodies), &c.,

are, as Linneus considered them, amongst the primary

types.” Neither Sphing nor Bombyx is, in the new

arrangement, acknowledged as a type at all.

But to proceed. Not long after Mr. Westwood’s book

was written, came Mr. Doubleday’s first “‘ Synonymic

List,” proposing the first instalment of the great changes

which were at hand. The first pages (1-8) were

published in October, 1847, and they went as far as the

genus Toeniocampa (in the Noctuce), proceeding in the

Linnean order through Ihopalocera (so called in the

List), Sphinges (so called), and Bombyces (so called). In

the following month (November, 1847) some more pages

(9-16) came out, carrying the list through the remainder

of the Noctue well on into the Geometre. Thus Mr.

Doubleday, lke all who preceded him, adopted the

old order, leaving no doubt that (1) Sphinx, (2) Bombyz,

(3) Noctua, (4) Geometra, was then, according to his

view, the correct arrangement. In August, 1849, there

was a complete re-issue of pp. 9-16, apparently for the

express purpose of taking in the Pyrales between the

Noctuce._ and Geometre. ‘This order, at all events, was

observed on pp. 13, 14, and 15 of the re-issue; and,

accordingly, Mr. Doubleday’s first list, when concluded

at the close of 1849, showed the following order: Rhopa-

locera, Sphinges, Bombyces, Noctue, Pyrales, Geometre.

At this time, therefore, the change was not very great or

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 329

startling, for Latreille had before (as we have seen) tried

the Pyrales in different positions without leaving them

very satisfactorily placed. But this alteration in the

Linnzan order by Doubleday was, nevertheless, openly

dissented from by Mr. Stephens, and it did not obtain,

I believe, the adhesion of entomologists.

Next, in 1852, was published the first vol. of M.

Guenée’s ‘ Noctuélites,” and on p. 2 of that work, we

find his ideas on classification. He says, ‘‘ The Noctuce can

be placed indifferently after Bombyx or after Geometra.

They unite with the former by the Noctwo-Bombycides

and Bombycoides, and with the latter by the Anthophilides,

Hrastrides, and Phalenoides. If this last disposition were

adopted, it would be necessary to attach GrompTRA to

Bompyx by the genera Amputpasys, Nyssta, §c., and to the

Noctum by the families just mentioned” (namely ANTHO-

PHILIDES, HrasrripEs, PHAaLmNoIDES). ‘This, I think, is a

most important passage ; and then follows this sentence:

“But up to this time, all the authors have placed the

Noctwe immediately after Bombyx, and when I reflect

that the bouleversement of that order adopted for such a

long time, would have nearly as many inconveniences as

advantages, I feel little disposed to make an innovation.”

Now here we have a candid suggestion by M. Guenée,

of a plan for placing the Geometre between BomByx and

Noctua; and he says that if this be done, the Noctue

must begin with Hrastria and Anthophila, which would re-

quire a complete re-arrangement of the group. Not a

word, remark, is here said by the author of the new system

about dividing the Bombyces, and placing the Geometre

between the sections. The whole passage tends directly

to this, that if effect is to be given to the affinity of Bom-

byx and Geometra, it must be by placing Geometra next to

Bombyx, and then securing the transition from Geometra

to Noctua, by a re-arrangement of the latter group. Too

much weight can hardly be given to this opinion.

M. Guenée, therefore, having decided in 1852 not to

disturb the arrangement, described the ‘‘ Noctuélites” in

the old order, that is, beginning with the Bombyciformes,

and having the Geometriform families at the end. When

his work had proceeded as far as the Geometre, M. Guenée

(in the ‘ Généralités, vol. 9, p. x) returned to the subject.

He says, “‘ you can attach the Phalenites to nearly all the

other divisions of the Nocturna. Thus, the Noctue give

330 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

us as a transition, the Hrastrides, Catocalides, Brephos,

and all the family of the Thermesides ; the Pyrales present

to us a crowd of species with large and slender wings,

which the old authors have confounded with the Geome-

tre ; the Deltoides approach them still more; lastly the

Bombyces include, in nearly all their principal sections,

families which border upon them ””—naming with others,

Euchelia, Platypteryx, Saturnia, Lithosia. Thus M.

Guenée in 1857.

The first volume of Stainton’s Manual was completed

in the same year; and the order there observed is, every-

one knows, the Linnzan order. A writer in the “ Natu-

ral History Review,” attacked Mr. Stainton on the subject

of his arrangement, and in particular for departing, for-

sooth, from that introduced in Mr. Doubleday’s list of

synonyms. The “ Substitute,” in a later article (Sub-

stitute, 1856-1857; p. 14, Art. ‘“ Change of names”’’)

took occasion to correct the first-named writer, and

inform him that a list without descriptions or characters

was “no authority at all for quotation,” a dictum in

which I venture to express my strong concurrence.

In the year 1858-59, Mr. Doubleday was getting ready

a new catalogue, and the authors of the then shortly

forthcoming ‘‘ Accentuated List”? were favoured, we

were told, with a sight of it. They straightway copied

the new list out of hand, and the first knowledge ento-

mologists in general had of the mercies in store for

them, was obtained on the appearance of the “‘ Accen-

tuated List.” The “ Intelligencer” of that date published

some comments on the new arrangement, and, in parti-

cular, protested against the Geometre ‘‘bemg placed

sandwich-like in the midst of the Bombyces.” (Intel.

vol. v. p. 169, Art. “ Practicability.”) The arrangement

of the new list was, however, almost universally followed,

notwithstanding the discouraging fact that there was no

descriptive work which followed that order, and the

actual nomenclature differed, in numerous cases, from all

the existing English descriptive works in use. This

great change was completely unsupported by any state-

ment of the reasons supposed to render it advisable.

The cause of the silence was not that the reasons were

obvious, or that the changes explained themselves. How

many owners of large collections would, if sitting down

to-day to arrange them “out of their heads,” hit upon

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 331

the arrangement of Mr. Doubleday? I suppose it is

quite certain that not one would place the species in

anything approaching to that order. Ever since the

publication of this second List* of Mr. Doubleday, we in

England have been subjected to the discomfort of having

to acknowledge two rival systems, the advocates of either

of which take the smallest recognition of the other. The

rights and wrongs of the matter have never been fought

out in consequence; a thing, perhaps, not difficult to ac-

count for, when we consider that the one party have never

shown, or professed to show, any reasons for their scheme.

Meanwhile, in 1866, Mr. Doubleday’s list saw another

edition. In 1867, Mr. Stainton published another book

on Butterflies and Moths, and a considerable portion of

it is concerned with classification. It takes no notice

whatever of the new order, and reproduces that of the

Manual. At the same time, Mr. Newman brings out his

descriptive work, the “Natural History of British

Moths,” in which he follows Mr. Doubleday. Lastly, in

1870, Dr. Knaggs prints a new list on the side of Mr.

Stainton ; and Dr. Staudinger only this year has brought

to the side of the Linnzan order another edition of his

elaborate Catalogue, which has indeed reached our hands

in England only within the last few days.

The alteration in the position of the Geometre, sug-

gested by M. Guenée as an alternative scheme of arrange-

ment, had not, until the year 1859, attracted much

attention ; but the primary idea of Mr. Doubleday’s List

was, it seems to have been considered, the carrying out

of that idea. At the same time, other and startling

variations in our arrangement were introduced; the

Sphinges and Bombyces were then rolled into one group ;

anda family of Bombyces, the Notodontide, being detached

and separated by the whole group of Geometre from the

main body, was erected into a group by itself; the

family Platypterygide was erected into a principal group,

and inserted next after the Geometre, and before the

detached Notodontide. The revolution was signalized,

as in the Year One of the French Republic, by things

being named anew.

* It would be invidious to push comment on this head much further ;

but, if any course more than another be calculated to invite hostile

criticism of this publication, the rhapsodical eulogy of it by its authors’

friends is certainly that one.

302 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

The Butterflies were no longer Rhopalocera, but were

named Diurni; the heterogeneous collection of Sphinges

and part of the Bombyces was named, with a pugnacious

disregard of tradition, Nocturni (the name Nocturna being

already well-known as designating, in Latreille’s arrange-

ment, all the moths outside the Sphingidw). The family

Platypterygide, not imcreased or reduced by a single

species, was now termed Drepanule; and, greatest

defiance of all, the separated Notodontide, being all the

species included in that family by Stamton, and all save

one originally so named by Stephens, were termed

Pseudo-Bombyces.

The names introduced by the revolutionists are all, I

venture to think, unfounded and unsustainable.

They term the Butterflies Diurni; and no doubt would

say in justification, that m domg so they merely revived

the name given by Latreille. Latreille’s name was a

completely good name according to Latreille’s system ;

for that system established three leading groups desig-

nated according to their time of flight. Latreille’s But-

terflies were Diurna, but his Sphinges were also Crepus-

cularia, and all the other Lepidopterous insects he termed

Nocturna. The division by times of flight has long been

abandoned, for many reasons; the most simple being that

the names conveyed a wholly erroneous notion of the

actual habits of the species, since a crowd of insects

besides the Diwrna are known to fly by day. In the face

of this history of the name, it was surely an error to

revive it; the name Fhopalocera for the butterflies had

been fully accepted by entomologists, and the change was

altogether gratuitous.

But what of the name Nocturni for Sphinges and Bom-

byces together,—even putting aside for the present, the

absurd union of these groups, which has been discounte-

nanced even by the followers of the new arrangement?

This name Nocturni is also, we have seen, completely

understood by entomologists as designating one of

Latreille’s three great divisions, the distinction between

Nocturna and Nocturni not being, I suppose, a matter of

which any nomenclator would make very much. The

use of those divisions is not continued at the present

day, but the name has its history in entomology, as indi-

cating a different group of insects from that to which it

troups of the Lepidoptera. 333

is now sought to apply it. There is surely no justification

for it here, and indeed the more it is examined, the more

uncalled for it seems to be.

First, the name would appear to suggest a fictitious

antithesis, or contrast with the Diwrnt immediately pre-

ceding. ’

Secondly, this name could not be accepted unless the

group comprised all night-flying species, and the Lepi-

doptera has again to be “classed according to their time

of flight.

Thirdly, the pretended group comprises very few of

the true night-flying species at all; and does include a

large number of species which fly only in the sunshine,

e. g., Macroglossa, Sesia, Procris, Zygena.

Fourthly, the pretended group includes the Sphinges,

which, if they are to be classed according to their time

of fight at all, must be called by the earlier name Cre-

puscularia.

Next, Drepanule. Since when has it become allow-

able to supplant the received name of a family by a new

one? It is notorious that this cannot be done in the

case of a species or genus. ‘The so-called ‘ Drepanula”’

(termed Drepanulide, without authority given, by Dr.

Knages) are, species for species, the Platypterices of

Hubner, the Platyptericide of Stephens’ Illustrations, the

Platypterygide of Stainton’s Manual; the name, without

any alteration, of the constituent parts of the family, is

sought to be altered to Drepanule, on the erection of

the family into a petty group. Without wishing to

impute a shabby motive, I protest I can find no reason

for this alteration, except that before hinted at, viz., the

passion for a new coinage and new nomenclature for

everything, which has in every age, been the weakness

of innovators.

Now, Pseudo-Bombyces. This name is very flagrant.

First, because it is an old name used by more than one

author to express different assortments of species, neither

of them the same as that to which it is now applied ;

secondly, because the genera forming this supposed

group have a prior name completely recognised ; thirdly,

because of the illogical relation of the name to the other

names in the same scheme of classification.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PaRT IM. (AvGUST.) AA

O04 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

The name “ Pseudo-Bombyces” was, it appears, first

used by Haworth, who in his “ Lepidoptera Britannica,”

thus designates a variety of Noctuce having pectinate an-

tenne. ‘The species classed together by Haworth under

this name are mostly now included in our genus Agrotis.

Next, Latreille in the “ Regne Animal” uses the same

name, as we have found, for one of his sections of the

Nocturna, there grouping under that name the Arctiidae,

Notodontide, and Lithoside. Thus the name Pseudo-

Bombyces has already a historic meaning. If Haworth’s

name passed for nothing, Latreille’s classification at least

was the work of a great systematist; and surely the

name which he gave to a certain group of genera cannot

be now applied with propriety to another. If sucha

practice were generally allowed, endless confusion would

be caused. ‘Timid writers would take care to get favour

for new arrangements by using old names; and we

should soon have the Pseudo-Bombyces of Haworth, of

Latreille, of Guenée, and of this, that, and the other

writer, all meaning different thmgs. A confusion of

this kind is very easily guarded against. A general law,

that no group distinguished by characters different from

those of the original group, shall bear the name of the

original group, meets the difficulty—and, perhaps, only

expresses what has been the practice of accurate authors.

Stephens, in his “ Illustrations,” unites all the so-called

Pseudo-Bombyces into one family, which he names Noto-

dontide ; and Stainton, in his Manual, describes them

species for species, under the same name. On this

ground the name Pseudo-Bombyces cannot, I assume, be

upheld.

But the reason which at once disestablishes the name

Pseudo-Bombyces for this so-called group is founded on

its own illogical position. The authors Haworth and

Latreille each recognized a group Bombyces, and there-

fore for them to call another group Pseudo-Bombyces was

not improper or ridiculous. ‘To ignore the existence of

the Bombyces as a natural group, and yet to exalt into a

natural group genera, whose common characteristic is a

certain definite unlikeness to the Bombyces, is a per-

formance in all respects worthy of a writer who, without

giving any reasons, interferes with the work of other

men. ‘The blunder is of the same character as would be

a proposal to tax, according to its wheat produce, a

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 3939

country in which cereals did not grow; or to express in

dry measure the standard height for our recruits !

One point on the subject we have just left, it may,

perhaps, be desirable very shortly to notice, as it might

be considered I had overlooked it. It may be urged

that the names Platypterygide and Notodontide terminat-

ing in -ide, are the names of families and not groups,

and that therefore when a group was to be expressed, it

was necessary a name with a different termination should

be used. The reasoning put forward must be either that—

(1.) The name of a group has a fixed termination

other than -ide ; or, that—

(2.) The termination -ide is exclusively used to indi-

cate some other distinction.

And neither of these contentions is true. Mr. Stainton,

for instance, in the Manual, uses a uniform termination

for the names of the groups, viz., -ina; “‘ Sphingina,”

“ Bombycina,” and the rest; but there is no sort of uni-

formity among the authors. Linnzeus uses the nominative

singular, ‘‘ Phaleena;” and the same for the genera, our

groups; “ Attacus,” “ Noctua,” “Tortriz.” Latreille’s

three groups end in “-a,” the neuter plural; but his

primary sections have any termination at hap-hazard,

thus: “ Aposura,” “ Tortrices,” ‘‘ Deltoides,” ‘ Tineites.”

The list now in vogue, following the new arrangement

uses, as did Hiibner in his ‘ Verzeichniss,” the simple

form “ Noctue,” “ Pyralides,” ‘‘ Crambi,’—a practice

actually objectionable, because those plurals also indicate

(in modern usage) the species of the genera Noctua,

Pyralis, Crambus. There is certainly no sanction for a

contention that the names of groups must be of uniform

termination.

Neither is it true that the termination -ide is exclu-

sively used to indicate the name of any other division.

Families in the modern books usually have that termina-

tion e.g. again, those of Stainton in his Manual. But

Guenée uses the same termination for his two leading

sections of the Noctuélites, Z'rifide and Quadrifide ; and

without looking further afield, Dr. Horsfield, as well as

Mr. Stephens (see the Introduction to his ‘‘ Systematic

Catalogue”), have used the termination -ide to indicate

the very thing we'are upon, the name of a group.

AA2

390 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

Besides (to return) it would seem that if the authors of

the new names felt a difficulty of this kind, they should,

according to their own plan have named their groups

“ Platypteryges” and ‘ Notodonte,” and there was no

sort of necessity to invent new titles.

With reference to the species constituting the new

group Pseudo-Bombyces, we have already seen that some

were before considered so closely akin to certain Bombyces,

that they were placed in the same family with them. On

the other hand, the species now collected were by Latreille

considered so dissimilar among themselves, that he placed

them three of his families apart, the species of the genus

Notodonta being classed with the Noctuce, in Gen. Crust.

&c., vol. iv.

The new grouping places twenty-seven Bombyciform

moths a long distance away from their allies, between

these and the main body, being the whole of the

very distinct group Geometre. That arrangement could

only be supported by showing that the Geometre na-

turally connect the Bombyces with the Pseudo-Bombyces ;

but there is not the slightest reason for saying that the

last-mentioned, or, if you please, “‘ aberrant” Bombyces

are connected with the other Bombyces through, or by

means of the Geometre. No author who has written

with reasons has ever suggested, remark, the possibility

of such an arrangement. ‘The relationship of the “aber-

rant” to the “true” Bombyces (I use these terms

strictly under protest) is direct; some families of the

latter pass gradually into the separated family Notodon-

tide, so plainly, that one learned author refused, as we

have seen, to consider the Notodontide anything but a

part of the Arctiidae (Westw. Introd. u. p. 385); and

Latreille also classes them in one family. The Notodon-

tide may, nevertheless, present such differences from the

typical Bombyx, that they should not be classed in the

same group. But their position even then should be

next to Bombyx.

On leaving the so-called Nocturni, we leave several

families of moths characterised by their strong and thick

wings, robust bodies, and antennz pectinate in the males ;

whose wings in repose meet roof-like over the abdomen,

whose larva has sixteen legs, and walks without looping.

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 337

We are next taken through the Geometre, and there

find numerous families of moths whose wings are thin

and weak, whose bodies are slender, whose antenne are

simple or filiform in the males, whose wings in repose

are extended, or put up vertically, whose larva has ten

legs, and cannot walk without looping. We are then

again brought back to an isolated set of twenty-seven

moths agreeing with the families from which we first

started, having strong and thick wings, robust bodies,

pectinate antenne, wings in repose meeting roof-like,

whose larva has sixteen legs.

The reasons for this startling arrangement, if I am at

liberty to guess them, centre in this, that between the

Geometre and the twenty-seven Bombyces, a connection

can be made by means of Platypteryx. In other words,

we are taken from the Bombyces by a leap into the Creo-

metre, in order to be shown by what easy stages we can

be brought from the Geometre back to the Bombyces

again! The fact that Platypteryx joms Geometra and

Bombyz is thus made the most of; but, even so, the new

order has, as it were, a rough edge, because the junction

of the true Bombyces (or Nocturni) with Geometra is not

effected by closely related species.

Now, let me endeavour to account for this extraordi-

nary group Pseudo-Bombyces. No one has vouchsafed a

line of explanation, and it is not my fault if I am all

abroad.

The arrangement of the Noctuc, in the different books,

had been conceived with a view to the position of the

group between the Bombyces at the one end, and the

Geometre at the other. The species least akin to the

Geometrcee had been put furthest away from the Geometre ;

the species least akin to the Bombyces furthest away from

the Bombyces. In the year 1852, M. Guenée—who in

1841, as we have seen, followed the same arrangement—

described or catalogued the Noctuc in this, the old order,

beginning with the species akin to Bombya. M. Guenée’s

work has taken its place as the chief work upon the

Noctwe ; and the author of it would not, it may be ex-

pected, be inclined, shortly after the book’s completion,

to favour a new arrangement, which would render it less

an authority.

The affinity between the Geometre and the Bombyces

seems in, or just before 1859, to have struck M. Guenée

as of greater importance than he had before considered

338 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

it; and in that year (as it is well understood, at his sug-

gestion) Mr. Doubleday’s second List introduced the new

arrangement. Let us bear in mind the important consi-

deration that, in Mr. Doubleday’s List, the order of

arrangement of the Nocrum was not changed. That

remained the same as when the group followed next after

the Bombyces, and the Geometre came at the end. Bom-

byciformes is still the first section (including the families

Noctuo-Bombycide and Bombycoide) ; and at the end

come the various Quadrifide with their half-looping larvee

(including the species acknowledged as Noctuo-Phalenidi

by M. Guenée himself in 1841),

It appears to me that this fact controlled the rest of

the arrangement. The order of the Noctuc begs the

question of the group’s position ; and it was, therefore,

necessary to start the Noctue from somethimg Bomby-

ciform. The new arrangement was introduced to give

effect to the affinity between the Geometre and the Bom-

byces, and this was carried out by placing the two groups

in juxta-position. Now, if the Geometre had only

been brought up and placed next to the Bombyces, the

Noctue making way for them, would have had to follow

the Geometre. The complete re-arrangement of the

Noctue would then have become necessary in view of

their changed location. But there were weighty reasons

against proposing a re-arrangement of the Noctue. Not

only had this group been long described in the books, in

the order which it would be necessary to abandon; but

M. Guenée himself had, within a very few years, com-

pleted an exhaustive work, whose order of arrangement

would also have become obsolete. M. Guenée would of

course be disposed to see advantage in a plan, which,

while giving full play to the affinity between Geometra

and Bomby«, at the same time preserved and vindicated

his own previous arrangement of the Noctuc. And here

I think we find the reason of the existing order.

It was necessary in the first place to join the Geometree

to the Bombyces, in order to exhibit what in the new

view was the natural relationship between these groups.

But, to preserve the union of the Noctuce with the Bom-

byces was equally necessary, if the existing arrangement

of the former was to be upheld. These two objects

were accomplished in the only way possible; and the

steps by which they were accomplished were the natural

ones for that purpose.

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 339

The only way in which it was possible to join on to the

Bombyces, both Geometre and Noctuce, was to divide the

first-named group, and fasten the Geometre to one part,

the Noctue to the other. M. Guenée had even more

recently been engaged upon the G'eometre, and no re-

arrangement of this group was likely to be proposed by

him, On the arrangement of the Bombyces, however, he

was unfettered, having published no views upon the order

of that group.

This measure of dividing the Bombyces once determined

on, all the details were, it seems to me, matters of ne-

cessity. The Platypterygide have affinities both with the

Bombyces and Geometre ; and that family, therefore, would

not occupy an unnatural position, if made a connecting

link between the two groups. This happy invention of

the Platypterygide, was the only thing wanted. Hvery

one knows to which family of Bombyces the Platyp-

terygide have always been considered akin. ‘Their larva

was described by Linnzus himself, as ‘ Vinule affinis”

(Syst. Nat. vol. 2; p. 860); and Prof. Westwood suc-

cinctly expresses the relationship of the groups, when

he says (Westw. Intr. 11. p. 362), “ Platypteryx agrees with

Geometra in the habit of the imago, but in its transforma- .

tions it is much nearer to Cerura, amongst the Bombyci-

de.’ Therefore the Notodontide (the family including

Cerura) came naturally to be the separated section. Thus

we have our new order worked out.

Although this arrangement secures its objects, I ven-

ture to think that it effects them in an empirical fashion ;

and also fails in effecting what an arrangement of the

Lepidoptera should secure.

In the front of my objection, I of course place this

starting of the Noctde from a few Bombyces, in order to

preserve the order of the former group. But that has

been sufficiently discussed. The erection of the family

Platypterygide into a group, I confess appears to me a

strong step. No author has yet described the Pla-

typterygide as a separate group, not even Mr. Newman,

who has faithfully followed the new order. He joins this

family to the Pseudo-Bombyces, and calls both together

“* Cuspidates,” a name he however explains is not a very

good one (Brit. Moths, p. 204). The erection of the

insect Aventia flecula into a separate group is also a very

strong proceeding, and I much question whether both

340 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

that group “ Aventiv,’ and its neighbour Deltoides,

were not both constituted primary groups, in order to

keep the two essential ones Drepanule and Pseudo-Bom-

byces in countenance.

The new order shirks the affinity between Geometra

and the Deltoides, and Geometra and Pyralis, of which M.

Guenée spoke so strongly (in his Généralités, vol. 9) ;

as well, of course, as shirking the necessity for re-

arrangement of the Noctue ; for, at present, the order

of that group leads one (according to M. Guenée’s own

expressions) to expect more Geometre to come at the end!

The union of Sphinw and Bombyx in one group I will

not discuss. I say with all humility, that the proposition

is, in my view, the result of an extreme disregard for

the opinion of entomologists, no one of whom has been

found to say a good word for the arrangement. ‘The

* sroup” Nocturni is properly stigmatised by Mr. New-

man as “heterogeneous, and far too comprehensive”

(Brit. Moths, pref. vi.).

It stands to reason, that the arrangement of families,

made with a view to their proximity to certain other

families, must require alteration when these last are no

longer in proximity, and their place is taken by species

totally different. But the feat to be accomplished by the

apostles of the new arrangement was this, that though

this reform was to be made, and the relations of the

neighbouring families altered, yet no change was to be

made in their order of arrangement. It was done, and

the result is the group Pseudo-Bombyces—a creation in

which, from its wonderful audacity, men are almost fain

to see some merit.

Observe one way in which (if it was necessary to strain

a point) the affinity of Geometra and Bombyx might be

exemplified. At the end of Bombyx, place Platypteryz ;

then begin Geometra, taking the group as at present

arranged, backwards; end Geometra with Metrocampa ;

then begin Noctua with Hrastria and Plusia, etc.; there

you have Geometra next to Bombyx,—the affinity victori-

ous, and no outrage on common sense, such as an eruption

of Bombyces, eight hundred species out place. Or again,

place Geometra before Bombyx, end Geometra with Amphi-

dasys, &c. (termed ‘‘ Bombyciformes ” by Hiibner); then

take the Bombyces, and go on from them to the Noctue ;

either by the Bombycoide, or by Gonoptera as Latreille

suggested.

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 341

But of course it does not rest with me, or any follower

of the Linnean order, to show M. Guenée how he may

gratify his taste for tactical movements. M. Guenée had,

before the new arrangement came out, done his best to

condemn it by anticipation; for he had stated in the

language I have quoted, that to place Geometra next to

Bombyx would require a re-arrangement of the Noctue,

though he has since fathered the proposition to carry out

the innovation, and yet leave the Noctuce as they were.

So much for the new arrangement. It was introduced

in a List intended to catalogue synonyms, and the pro-

mulgation of it seems to have been considered a minor

object, even by its authors. In England alone does it

appear to have taken root. No writer on the Continent

follows the plan; and the Americans do not so much as

recognise its existence. In Dr. Packard’s ‘‘ Guide to

the Study of Insects,” one of the best entomological

books ever written, the order of the Lepidoptera given is

that of Linnzeus, and the work contains numerous pas-

sages in support of that arrangement (see pp. 283-284,

293, 302, 318, &c.). In the preface (p. iv.) we read that

this succession of the families of the Lepidoptera is “that

now generally agreed upon by entomologists.” It seems

that lists without reasons are not accounted anything

by the great nation beyond the Atlantic.

One word before we come to the “ Lists,” upon the

principle on which changes in names are to be made.

It is continually being discovered that, after an insect

has been called by one name for, say, fifty years, it really

ought to be called something else, because that name

was “earlier.” I leave out of the question the doubt

which attends so many of these earlier names, arising

from variable characters, imperfect condition of a speci-

men, from mis-coloration of a figure, or lack of descriptive

acumen in the author,—all matters affecting the fidelity

of a reference. But, supposing a prior name to be dis-

covered clearly meant for the insect which has always

been misnamed; is it always desirable to discard the

wrong name? It is a maxim of law, which might with

advantage govern scientific nomenclature, that Com-

munis error facit jus; and, when the entomological

world is startled by receiving orders to call all the old

insects by new names, | think a craving for some good

rule of this kind must be experienced by many. It

342 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

will always, to the majority, appear unreasonable, to

require all people, nations, and languages, to give upa

name on which the world is agreed, for some other no

one living has before heard of. We have been only

lately a good deal startled by receiving orders to call our

Butterflies by names which are very new to us, and if

our authors had shown a reasonable deference to the

maxim Communis error facit jus, we might have been

spared some disagreeables. The mode, however, of

introducing changes in names—wholly unsatisfactory as

it is—has effectually prevented any rule of this kind

being even proposed, as we shall, I think, presently find.

In last years Transactions, appear some learned papers

by Mr. Crotch, on the genera of Coleoptera,* showing how

much confusion there has been in them; and the President

in his address this year, suggests that it may be necessary

to take some concerted action with a view to settlement.

The concerted action will, I think I may prophesy, take

this form, that all that is will be declared right, and the

forgotten, if accurate, distinctions will be remitted to the

oblivion from which they were dragged. It 7s too much

to be told, as Mr. Dunning remarked was its effect, when

the paper was read here, that “ all the names by which we

have been calling our beetles are wrong,” and, when the

information comes thus in a lump, the change is resisted.

In principle, there is no difference between that case and

the case of our Butterflies; everyone has agreed to call

Linea Linea, and it is too much because some one else

once called it by a different name, to ask the whole scien-

tific world to abandon that and call the species Thaumas.

The mode, however, of introducing changes of names

(in the English synonymic lists at least) is very unsatis-

factory, and tells the reader nothing; and it is by no

means surprising, that the changes themselves are there-

fore so unacceptable. One reason why they are so, is

because they are unexplained. Itis no explanation at all

to scratch out the old name and writein the new one. At

that rate, any one could make a very startling and real-

looking list with a Latin dictionary and a list of abbrevi-

ations. Nor is it any explanation to write in the new

name, leaving the old name underneath. That only

shows what the erasure shows just as well—which name

it is that is superseded.

* Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. for 1870, pp. 41, 213.

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 343

To demonstrate that the practice followed furnishes

no explanation is very easy. Hither of two very substan-

tial reasons at the least, very widely different in kind,

may be the ground of a change in name. The first is,

that the new name is found to have been published

earlier than the old. The second is, that the old one

is found to refer to another species. Now, no indication

at all is given, by the English lists, which of these two

reasons has caused the change of name. It may well be

a very nice question (in the latter case) to what species

the old name does refer, and unless a reference, at the

very least, is given, each reader must do all the author’s

work again. The effect of the present fashion here is

often to pass off, as the work of one of the old entomolo-

gists, the wholly inaccurate deduction of the modern

editor.

In the case of a change of name, when the old name

has been discovered to refer to a different insect, there

may be circumstances of especial interest which make

the author’s omission to give references or extracts parti-

cularly unfortunate. Thus, where a name Tantalus is

found, some fine day, supplanted in our lists by a

new one (say) IJxion, the name Tantalus referring to

another insect, it may well be that the true Tantalus has

at some time or other occurred in England, that being,

indeed, the most probable cause of the confusion. Here

you have an interesting point raised directly, involving,

perhaps, some curious question of geographical distribu-

tion. Such a discovery is impeded by the practice of

the English list-makers to withhold reasons and re-

ferences.

It is out of the question that all our entomologists

should be equally well acquainted with the works of

foreign authors, or should enjoy equal opportunities for

deliberate study. If, indeed, they were so circum-

stanced, it is not for the interest of science that each

should pursue his investigations for himself; but the

acknowledged fact is, that access to foreign works, or

old English works, is the privilege of a very few.

Therefore, the giving of mere references to works that

cannot be consulted is not a sufficient help to the

reader ; eatracts and a commentary are both necessary.

Last year, a new “ Cabinet List” appeared “ printed

on one side only,” with the name of Dr. Knaggs as

344, Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

editor. This list follows the ‘ Manual,” with many

emendations of nomenclature, and a few suggestions for

alteration of the order. Perhaps it may be considered

that it did not lie with Dr. Knaggs, reproducing another

man’s work, to justify it; but at all events, the new things

in the “ Cabinet List’? demanded some explanation.

The Nolide are included by Stainton (in the Manual)

among the Pyralidina. Doubleday puts them with the

Nocturni; Dr. Knaggs gives up the Nolide, and ‘‘recom-

mends” their insertion amongst the Bombyces (Cabinet

List, pp. 3, 11). He is careful not to state any reason

at all, for the conveyance of this family across the

dead bodies of seven hundred species, and the unlearned

entomologist is left to think himself very stupid that he

does not see it all quite clearly. Now, if the ‘ Manual”

order is so good, that it is proper to produce it anew

after a lapse of twelve years, what obvious and crying

error was made in the classification of Nolidw, that Mr.

Stainton’s readers must blush to observe his arrangement

any longer? The Nolide are by Westwood (Introd. to

Mod. Class. vol. 1. p. 401) also classed with the Pyrales,

but said to be allied to the Vortrices, and reasons for the

opinion are given, drawn from the wings of the imago,

and the cocoon. ‘They are also classed with the Pyrales

by Haworth, by Stephens, and by Curtis, the last-named

of whom also notices their affinity to Yortriz. But

Doubleday’s List places the Nolide in the Nocturni, and

Dr. Staudinger’s also (in the family Lithoside). No

reasons are given, and Dr. Knagegs politely “advises ”

that this should be their position.

It is of importance to recollect that Dr. Knagegs’ List

is published as a labelling list; and of the new practice of

“advising” and “recommending” changes in a publica-

tion of this class, I shall have a few words to say before

the conclusion of this paper.

Dr. Knaggs’ List gives some other pieces of advice.

It “recommends” that Aventia be placed in the Noctue

after Toxocampa, and that the Pterophori come after Nom-

ophila in the Pyrales! As to Aventia, I suppose anyone

may express an opinion without its doimg much harm, as

the genus has long been treated as an outcast. The new

arrangement makes it, as we have seen, a group by itself

(placed between the Deltoides and Pyralis) an enterprising

course at all events; Staudinger (another list writer)

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 345

places it in the Noctue already, and in the same position

which Dr. Knaggs ‘‘recommends.” Stainton had placed

it in the Geometre, following Hiibner, Stephens, and

others who had also done so. Here is a change in which

surely the list-writers might spare us a few sentences in

a foot-note.

But Dr. Knaggs also “advises” us to place the Ptero-

phori among the Pyrales ; and if a change of this sort is

to be brought about thus in a labelling list, it is a waste

of time ever to write a book.

In Dr. Knagegs’ List, a rule to be observed in the con-

struction of synonymic Lists is laid down, and a reason

for it is given. The rule (expressed * by the way, in

eccentric English) is that where the two sexes of a species

have been named simultaneously, the name given to the

female should be preferred. J am not concerned now

with the reason; it is a great thing to have some reason

advanced. But as to the author’s confidence in his own

rule, it is instructive to examine his treatment of a few

well-known cases.

Linneus “ named simultaneously ” the two sexes of the

Meadow-brown Butterfly, terming the male Janira, and

the female Jurtina ; and Haworth actually did term the

Butterfly Jurtina alone, which according to Dr. Knaggs

was the only right name. Dr. Staudinger also suggests

that Jurtina may be the better name, because it is given

before Janira, in order. Dr. Knages, however, writes

the species down Janira, in defiance of his own regulation.

There are several other instances. Sibylla is, it is now

admitted, the male name for our White Admiral But-

terfly, and Camilla the female, both names being given

by Linnzeus; Camilla for a long time was the name in

use in England, Haworth, Stephens, and Curtis (the two

latter with emphasis) stating that Camilla is the name

of our insect. Dr. Knaggs has Sibylla in his list. T'ro-

chilium Cynipiformis appears to be in a similar case,

the female name being Cistriformis, Rottemburg. And

to take one other instance, exceedingly easy to be veri-

* The following is Dr. Knaggs’ “‘ Note.’’—‘‘ Should the sezes of a species

have been named simultaneously, that of the female is adopted, for the

reason, that, while the ¢ is alone utterly incapable of perpetuating its

species, the unimpregnated 2 9 of several insects have the power of

reproducing their like, and may therefore be considered to be of the higher

organism.” [I am responsible for all ttalics.]

346 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

fied; our own Haworth “named simultaneously” the

two sexes of Miana arcuosa, the name arcuosa beng

given to the male. No one terms the species anything

else than arcwosa, and Dr. Knaggs does not suggest that,

according to his canon, the name minima (given to the

female) must be accepted instead.

The reason he does not is, perhaps, the same which

would control the action of any adventurous writer. A

principle can be stated, and supported as a principle,

without encountering any vigorous opposition. Hntomo-

logists at large do not know enough to see its effect, and

choose not to quarrel with a learned writer till he makes

an overt attack. Dr. Knaggs avoids encountering the

displeasure of the collectors, but he does so at the cost

of acknowledging that Communis error facit jus.

But do not the English entomologists demand better

work than this? Theory and practice are not on speak-

ing terms in Dr. Knaggs’ list. Let us hope a list of

labels will never again assume to introduce changes, or

lay down a law.

Mr. Newman’s “‘ Natural History of British Moths” is

a work extensively used by collectors of the unscientific

class. The sort of practical joke, by which the later

English writers carry off—I speak without offence—their

autocratic manner, is played more than once in this book.

The joke is almost de rigueur with authors on Lepidop-

terology. It consists in an assumption on the part of the

writer, that he is addressing children, and a continual

reference to his readers’ youthfulness and inexperience.

No one writes on the Lepidoptera for grown people! It

is a very remarkable thing that the books now are always

published for “the young collector.” This is very

pleasant for the authors, because they are saved a great

deal of trouble. You do not give the reasons for things

to children; they are satisfied without; and in a book

written ostensibly for children, no one looks for anything

very thorough or deep. It would be a pity, however,

that an author should carry even this joke too far, be-

cause it might unjustly be imputed that he bid for the

approval of the unscientific. [ am beginning to fear

that we shall not have any more English books that are

not addressed to the school-room; and I have no expec-

tation but that the title-page of the forthcoming work

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 347

by Dr. Knaggs will state, that it is ‘The Synonymy of

the Lepidoptera of Great Britain and Ireland; expur-

gated for the young collector.”

Mr. Newman’s “ Natural History,” I venture to sug-

gest, contains several passages, which are exceedingly

objectionable to an independent mind. The passage

which I mention is only quoted here, because it is neces-

sary to take some instance in order to illustrate the views,

which I respectfully urge in this paper. I take one in-

stance and only one.

After describing the Leucanie and Nonagrie and their

allies, in whose names and order some changes are intro-

duced, Mr. Newman prints an “observation ” as follows:

** In concluding the family of Leucanide, it seems desirable

to allude to the changes which it has been deemed right

to make in the names:”—This commencement gave me

great pleasure; it is very desirable indeed, I think, not

only to allude to, but also to discuss and explain all

changes, whether in names or inarrangement. ‘The pas-

sage continues: ‘‘ But I believe I may state, that where

I have departed from the names and arrangement of Mr.

Doubleday’s List, it has been with the entire approval of

that lepidopterist”” (Newm. Brit. Moths, p. 276). And

so, it is enough, is it, to say that? An author is to chop

and change the arrangement of the Macro-Lepidoptera,

without a scratch of the pen for reason, and unblushingly

present to us the results of the operation, stamped with

someone else’s “entire approval!” After carefully

spreading the cloth, this is the stale crust Mr. Newman

flings us to stay our starving capacities! What ento-

mologists want is, not that changes should come to

them ‘‘approved of” by this or that leading man, but

that each author who proposes an alteration in clas-

sification or nomenclature for their adoption, should

first state all his reasons, and then leave the ‘‘ approval ”

to them. Haworth himself, whose follower Mr. Newman

claims to be, tried to carry things through by other

men’s ‘approbation,’ and had to abandon summarily

the very plan which he presented with such a flourish.

I refer to Haworth’s plan of uniform terminations for the

names of all the Lepidoptera, which had, as he boasted,

‘the full and individual approbation of all the members

of the Aurelian Society” (Haw. Lep. Brit.; pref. xix. ;

and pp. 139, 588).

348 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

Lists are, I suppose, divided into synonymic lists and

labelling lists. Restricted to their proper objects, sy-

nonymic lists are very useful things; and while entomo-

logists continue to label their collections, printed labelling

lists will always play a useful, if a humble, part in the

world of science.

A list is a list all the world over, and cannot be a

treatise. ‘To make a list answer the purpose of a treatise

is at all events a very slovenly proceeding. But there

are some functions which a list cannot perform. I am

concerned only with one. <A bare list cannot state rea-

sons for results ; it can only catalogue the results them-

selves. Now, was it ever designed in the institution of

synonymic lists, that they should be an authority upon

classification, or the medium for introducing important

changes in arrangement? Classification is the highest

incident of scientific study, which requires, if anything

requires it, a full statement of reasons pro and con.,

research, deliberation, careful discrimination between

published conclusions. An opimion on a system of

arrangement, formed without such preparation, would be

absolutely worthless in a scientific point of view, by

whomsoever it might be expressed. A list such as Mr.

Doubleday’s makes no pretence of affording any guide

for the formation of a judgment, even on the propriety

of the names; and as to them, rests entirely for its

acceptability on the reputation of its author. But can it

be tolerated, that a bare array of names, shaken into a

certain order, shall be accepted as any authority that that

order is natural or proper? Surely no list has or can

have such authority, and there would be a stultification

of science if it had. When we desire authorities upon

System, we go to books, written by entomologists, who

have given reasons for their plan. It has not been

thought beneath the attention of the men most reverenced

in science, to devote a studious lifetime to the perfecting

of systems of classification. The works of those men

remain, and will remain, the great authorities, though

stacks of ‘‘ synonymic lists” may leave our printing-offices

year by year.

A mere list is not of any value even as corroborating

or adopting an ewisting arrangement. An arrangement

of insects depends for its acceptability on its own merits,

and is no better if a hundred synonymic lists, without

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 349

reasons, are published following the same order. But

what respect is such a list to receive, when it seeks to

change and subvert an arrangement previously adopted ?

How completely absurd it is to accept as any authority

a list, which, as if by its author’s ipse dizi, supersedes

the work of an entomologist who has given his reasons!

Worse ignominy awaits us in the spectacle of our system

re-organised by labelling lists! If the label writer keeps

his place, people will buy his labels in the course of business,

and his publisher’s account may be expected to show a

moderately satisfactory return. But if the label writer

assumes too much, and pretends to be a systematist, we

shall probably choose to deal somewhere else. When we

buy a labelling list, it is generally with the confidence

that if we do not secure a learned, we at least have a

useful commodity. But if a label writer takes to tinker-

ing the lists on his own account, not only is his new

labour thrown away, but his own proper work is rendered

untrustworthy. I have no hesitation in saying, that I

regard the introduction of changes in arrangement in a

list intended for labelling as an affront to science ; and,

if such a course is not considered to fix a stigma on the

scientific reputation of an author, it is only because the

ignorant and unreflecting collectors are so numerous

that they constitute the majority and direct opinion.

I gladly dismiss this subject (on which, as will have

been gathered, I hold a strong view) by suggesting a

consideration which I think should weigh with any

author, having pretensions to be a man of science. ‘To

publish changes in a labelling list for the first time, is to

obtain a sanction for new views by adventitious means

—a thing to be deprecated by all. - I leave these gentle-

men and their followers to the scourge of M. Guenée’s

trenchant sarcasm where, speaking of improper changes,

he says they “tendent 4 se vulgariser chez nous par les

nombreux entomologistes-amateurs qui ne posstdent,

pour toute bibliothéque, qu’un catalogue qwils suivent

aveuglément” (Lépidopt., vol. 9, p. xxxiii.).

An entomological book ought to fulfil the conditions

required of all good books, according to its kind. If an

entomological book seek to introduce alterations, an

entomological book like any other book, ought to support

those alterations by facts and reasoning. If it be sup-

TRANS. ENT. soc, 1871.—ParT 11, (AUGUST.) BB

350 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on

posed (and I am reduced to believing that it is supposed) ,

that entomology is a subject by itself, im which it is

easy to be a great man, it is necessary to say that

such a creed is a mistake. It may be the case that a

writer of pre-eminent position, who has earned universal

respect on a special subject, is allowed to transgress the

ordinary rules, and his opinions alone carry weight with-

out the reasons for them being stated. But there is

certainly no living entomologist who stands in this posi-

tion towards his fellow-students, and I am strongly inclined

to believe that of all the sciences, this very one of ours

is the one among whose votaries there is the greatest

evenness of knowledge, and capacity for judgment, ceteris

paribus, the men being matched in other respects. I

have long entertained the opinion, that entomology is a

science in which any student can obtain considerable

proficiency, and that authors who treat of it ought to

unbend to their readers, because their readers are often

as clever as themselves. To publish conclusions without

reasons, is not only not to unbend, but is a highly self-

sufficient action; and in any other walk of literature

would augur an exaggerated self-esteem and consider-

able disregard of other persons’ judgment.

A good scientific book, then, I humbly contend, should

state all the reasons for every opinion advanced, or

scheme propounded, and should quote and discuss pre-

vious authorities bearing on the subject in hand. In

fact, the book should submit everything,—reasons, autho-

rities, conclusions—to the judgment of the reader.

First of all, is it an author’s duty to absolve himself

from the suspicion of chicanery. I candidly confess, the

very first idea which crosses my mind when I take up a

hst or catalogue whose contents are not supported by

reasons (published either in the book or elsewhere), is ;

to what extent is the writer of this a quack ?

Mr. Doubleday and Dr. Knages treat me no better

than does the dealer, at whose shop I may purchase to-

morrow a little book professing to contain ‘ Gardner’s

Arrangement.” JI have procured a copy of this publica-

tion, and I can assure the Society that it alters the order

of the species, chops and changes the genera, and in all

things enacts to the life the part of a thorough-bred

“list.” It is supported by no reasons of any sort, of

course, but it is no worse in this than are the others.

Groups of the Lepidoptera. 351

Respect for the quarter of its origin does not prevent

my deriding it as fanciful, and stigmatising its changes

of the order as unmeaning; but am I quite sure it has

not as good authority as the Cabinet List, “printed

on one side only”? I do not follow the order of

arrangement given in this dealer’s list, because he shows

me no reason why I should do so, What reason, pray,

is offered me for following Mr. Doubleday’s?

Surely I need not press further the imperative urgency

there is for entomological writers to absolve their work

from all appearance of chicanery. Next, it is (as I have

already urged) an entomological writer’s duty to furnish

his readers with the materials for forming an independent

judgment. For upon this, in great measure, depends

whether or not his performance is worth our study. The

English lists, as now published, afford no materials at

all for estimating the writers’ trustworthiness, and it is

impossible, without doing the author’s work over again

for ourselves, to determine whether or not we shall avail

ourselves of his labours. Indeed, a list of species, such

as the English list-makers offer, is an absurd composition

in every view—a list of names merely, with abbreviations

of the nomenclators’ names appended. No quotations,

no references even, are supplied, much less foot-notes

explaining the causes of this or that alteration in name

or position.

An aim which I had in this paper was, that by asking

the attention of scientific men to the method of intro-

ducing changes in arrangement, I might draw from them

some expressions of disapproval of the existing fashion,

such as may, perhaps, have the effect of establishing a

better practice. The promulgation of important changes,

by mere lists as barren as those I have slightly noticed,

seems likely to become the rule, unless the opinion of

entomologists is very decidedly expressed. The bewil-

derment continually felt (outside the publishing céterie)

as to the reasons for the frequent changes is just now

very general. Any understanding now arrived at would

be most opportune, and have a good effect in removing

feelings even of annoyance, which I think are not con-

fined toa few. It is high time something were done.

I challenge any Lepidopterist to say, that he can look

with complacency upon the development of entomolo-

gical science in England for the last twelve years, in

BB2

B52 _ Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on Lepidoptera.

which his fellow-students have been so unreasonably led,

and have so unreasonably followed. The present condi-

tion of entomological literature in England is, so far as

concerns the “Lepidoptera, utterly unequal to the needs

and below the capacities of the students of that Order.

X. Descriptions of some new exotic species of Lucanide.

By J. O. Wzstwoop, M.A., F.L.S., &c.

[Read Ist May, 1871.]

By the kindness of Dr. Howitt of Melbourne, and Major

F. J. Parry, I am enabled to offer to the Entomological

Society, descriptions and figures of a number of new

species of this interesting family, by way of further sup-

plement to the different articles which have appeared,

from time to time, in the Society’s Transactions, upon

these insects.

The great additions which have been made, to our

knowledge of this group during the last twenty years,

have rendered necessary the breaking up of the old

genera Lucanus and Dorews into minor groups, or sub-

genera, and the most interesting species to be described

in this communication is sufficiently distinct from pre-

viously separated groups, as to render necessary the

proposal of another, with the name :—

Ruztoutvus (Parry, MS.).

Corpus oblongum, subdepressum. Caput et pronotum

sub lente granulata subopaca; elytra parum nitida punc-

tatissima. Labrum porrectum transversum, in medio

marginis antici paullo angulato-productum ; mandibulz

magne, curvatee, contorte ; antenne long, clava 3-arti-

culata. Pedes longi, tibize 4 posticee in medio 1-calcaratae.

Prothorax lateribus crenatis haud spinosis.

Species unica, RH£ZXTULUS CRENATUS, mas.

(Plate VIII. fig. 4.)

Piceo-niger, elytris magis castaneo-nigris ; mandibulis

capite duplo longioribus, valde curvatis, et in medio ele-

vatis, apicibus depressis fortiter bifidis, margine antico

vel supero basin versus dento parvo conico erecto, et in

medio denticulis numerosis obtusis, armato; pedibus

antennisque nigris, tibiis anticis denticulis circiter 14 in-

structis.

Long. corp. lin. 15; mandib. lin. 6.

Hab.—In Insula Formosa. In Mus. Parry.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—parT WI. (AUGUST-)

By! Prof. Westwood on

This insect, to which Major Parry has given the name

above employed, is most nearly allied to Rhwtus West-

wood, from which it is sufficiently (subgenerically)

distinct, by the smaller size of the head (which in that

insect is as large as the prothorax), by the upper surface

of the head and prothorax being entirely covered with

minute granulations, rendering them subopaque (instead

of being polished); by the elytra also being covered with

minute punctures, scarcely visible, except under a lens,

but giving them a less brilliant appearance than they

have in Ihetus ; in the anterior tibize being denticulated

throughout their outer edge, in the two posterior tibize

being armed with a small tooth on the middle of the

outer edge (as well as the two middle tibiz), one of

which, indeed, exhibits trace of a second rudimental

tooth; in the regular crenation of the sides of the pro-

thorax, destitute of the two teeth on each side visible in

Rheetus; in the disc of the head wanting the two elevated

spaces between the eyes, which leave the centre de-

pressed in Ithwtus, and lastly, in the smaller size of the

insect.

The head is transverse, with a small raised tubercle in

front of each eye; the anterior lateral angles being

oblique, punctate, andslightly emarginate. The labrum

is porrected, transverse, the lateral anterior angles acute,

and the middle of the fore-margin moderately produced

into an angle. It is similarly granulose with the re-

mainder of the upper-side of the head. The antennz

have the seventh joint produced into an acute spine, the

sixth being also larger than the fifth. The maxille are

elongate, the outer lobe long, and strongly setose. The

mentum is broad at the base, the sides very oblique, and

the middle of the anterior margin very slightly emargi-

nate; it is not only granulate, but marked with large

round shallow punctures. The labium is bi-partite,

moderately setose, and the labial palpi have the basal

joint elongated. The prothorax is transversely quad-

rate, with the anterior and posterior lateral angies

oblique, the lateral margins finely crenated, the disc

convex, and marked close to the middle of the anterior

margin with a small polished space. The sides and

hinder margin are distinctly elevated into a slender

margin; the suture of the elytra is polished, and the

sides and apex of the elytra are margined. The anterior

Lucanide. 350

tibiz are armed throughout the whole length of the

outer edge with about fourteen teeth, those next the base

gradually diminishing in size, the larger ones being

wider apart, with minute crenations between them. The

middle tibize are armed with one spine in the middle of

the outer edge, behind which is to be perceived the very

minute rudiment of the second spine. The two hind

tibize have only a single spine on the same situation. The

under-surface of the body is moderately glossy and black,

the prosternum is grooved down its centre between the

anterior coxee, and the mesosternum is quite simple.

In Major Parry’s collection is preserved a female

specimen brought from Formosa by Mr. Swinhoe, which

may possibly be the other sex of Rhetulus crenatus, but

which it would be rash, without further information, to

describe as such at present. Itis eleven lines long, black

and polished, the head small and rugose, the sides of the

head in front of the eyes very oblique, forming a large

canthus extending over two-thirds of the length of those

organs. The labrum is small, rugose, as well as the man-

dibles, which are armed with a small tooth in the middle,

and when shut close at rest, forming a triangle, advanced

in front of the head scarcely more than half its length ;

the prothorax and elytra are minutely punctured, the

punctures at the sides and along the hind margin of the

prothorax more strongly and thickly disposed. The

sides of the prothorax are margined and crenated ; one

tooth, opposite the humeral angle of the elytra, bemg

shightly more prominent than the rest. The anterior

tibiz are crenated with about ten stronger teeth on the

outer margin; the middle tibiz are armed with a central

spine in the middle of their outer edge, which is deli-

cately crenated, and they have a very minute rudimental

spine in front of the large middle one. ‘The two hind

tibiz are armed only with a single central spine.

Note on Ruxtus Westwoopit.

The precise habitat of the origmal specimen of hetus

Westwoodii was unknown, but Major Parry has recently

obtained a second individual from the Himalayas. Hence

he is induced to consider it probable, that the Himalayan

306 Prof. Westwood on

female Doreus derelictus,* may be the opposite sex of Rhe-

tus, whilst at the same time he entertains the opinion that

Dorcus rudis, Westw., is the female of the insect described

below, under the name of Dorcus ratiocinativus. I have

entered into the consideration of this opinion, in the

observations upon D. rudis, given in a subsequent page.

In his original description of D. derelictus, Major Parry

was so struck with the “ utterly anomalous slender anterior

and unarmed posterior tibive,’’ and other characters, as

to doubt whether the specimen were really a female, or a

male with short ill-developed mandibles, and whether

the insect ought not to be removed to the genus Hury-

trachelus; whilst in his memoir, in 1870, he considered

it nearer to Cladognathus and Odontolabis. The speci-

men having been dissected by Mr. C. Waterhouse, has

proved to be a female, as confirmed by a subsequent

examination of the mouth-organs, which I have been

enabled to make by the kindness of Major Parry, and

which are noticed in my observations on the sexual

relations of D. rudis.

Dorcus RATIOCINATIVUS, nN. 8.

(Plate VIII. fig. 2, wale.)

Niger, prothorace et elytris parum castaneo-tinctis,

capite opaco pone oculos subangulato, mandibulis capitis

longitudine, falcatis dente medio suberecto armatis, pro-

thorace transverso quadrato, lateribus subparallelis, angu-

his posticis lateralibus truncatis, denticulo parvo utrinque

instructis, pronoto et elytris subnitidis et subleevibus.

Long. corp. lin. 11; mand. fere lin. 2.

Hab.—Himalaya. In Mus. Parry.

This small species is of a narrow oblong form, the

thorax being scarcely broader either than the head or

* Dorcus derelictus, Parry.

Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1862, p. 112; Trans. Ent. Soe. 3rd, s. v. 2,

pp. 50, 90; 1870, p. 92, pl. xi. f. 3.

D. elongatus niger nitidus, capite inter oculos bituberculato; mandibulis

obsolete unidentatis; elytris levissimis subparallelis ; tibiis posterioribus

extus subcurvatis, Inermibus, intermediis unidentatis.

Long. corp. (mand. incl.) une. 1, lin, 5.

Hab.—Ind., or Himalayas. Coll. Parry.

Lucanide. Ba

elytra, itis subconvex ; the head is broad, nearly flat above,

and subopaque, being seen, with a strong lens, to be en-

tirely covered with very minute granules, placed closely

together; the sides behind the eyes are slightly angulate,

the canthus extends half the length of the eyes; the

anterior lateral angles in front of the canthus being

obliquely truncate, and slightly emarginate; the labrum

is Short and transverse, with the fore-margin straight, and

fringed with short fulvous hairs ; the mandibles are about

the length of the head, sickle-shaped, and acute at the

tips; the basal portion is concave, the outer angle (in

front of the eyes) being dilated, in the middle they are

armed with a strong nearly erect spine. The maxille

are moderately long, the lobes clothed with long hairs,

the inner lobe being simple; the mentum has the lateral

anterior angles rounded, and the fore-margin nearly

straight. The prothorax is transverse, with a slender

raised margin all round its circumference; it has the sides

nearly parallel, terminating behind in a small tooth,

behind which the lateral angles are obliquely truncate,

the anterior margin is rounded towards the head; the

disc is convex and polished, with the outer angles finely

punctured. The elytra are oblong, convex and polished,

and, seen under a lens, covered with very minute punctures.

The anterior tibiz are armed with seven small teeth

on the outer edge, and the four hind tibiz have a small

spine in the mfddle of each.

Major Parry is inclined to believe that this insect is

the male of D. rudis, next described.

Dorcus RUDIS.

(Plate VIII. fig. 3.)

9. Totus niger, rude punctatus; elytris costatis in-

terstitiis punctatissimis, capitis angulis anticis lateralibus

obliquis, oculis septo dimidiatim incisis ; prothoracis an-

gulis posticis oblique emarginatis ; elytris angulo hume-

rali prominenti notatis.

Long. corp. (cum mandibulis) lin. 10.

Hab.—India vel Insulis Indicis? In Mus. D. Parry.

Dorcus (Prosopocoilus ?) rudis, Westw., Trans. Ent.

Soc., ser. 3, vol. 11. p. 35 (1864).

308 Prof. Westwood on

Cladognathus rudis, Parry, loc. cit., p. 35.

Dorcus rudis, Parry, Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 112.

The original female type of this species is here more

carefully re-figured, in order to afford comparison with

the male Doreus ratiocinativus (Plate VIII. fig. 2)

which Major Parry is inclined to regard as its genuine

male. The precise habitat of this female specimen is,

unfortunately, not known, and it is from analogy only

that Major Parry has been led to the supposition of its

being the female of the Himalayan insect. Should Major

Parry’s suggestion that Doreus derelictus is the female of

Rheetus Westwoodii prove to be correct, we shall, I think,

be scarcely warranted in adopting his view as to the

sexual relationship of the two former insects, since the

great difference between the two females far outweighs

the close affinity existing between the two males.

Thus, although the structure of the mouth organs,

especially the hooked inner lobe of the maxilla, mentum,

and labium, with its palpi, are quite alike in the two

females; the mandibles of D. derelictus are straighter,

and curved, with two teeth on the inner edge; the head

is bicornute, and but slightly punctured, the prothorax

being almost impunctate, with the lateral margins regu-

larly rounded; the elytra also impunctate, except at the

sides ; the fore tibiee very slender, and with about seven

very small denticulations on the outer margin, the middle

tibie with a single spine in the middle, and the hind

tibia unarmed in the middle; differmg in all these

respects from D. rudis, the male of which will, no doubt,

prove to be avery distinct creature from the genuine

male of Dorcus derelictus.

DoRcUSs SUTURALIS, 1. sp.

(Plate VIII. fig. 5.)

Obscure niger, elytris subopacis, regione scutellari et

suturali glabrata, capite-transverso, labro brevissimo,

transverso, antice emarginato ; mandibulis capite duplo

longioribus, falcatis ; dente crasso submedio antice parum

porrecto armatis, mento lato, cicatricoso.

Long. corp. lin. 165 ; mandibul. lin. 5.

Hab.—Pungi, Himalaya. In Mus. Parry.

Lucanide. 359

The head is transverse, with the sides, including the

lateral canthus of the eyes, nearly parallel; the hinder

angles behind the eyes rounded; the canthus extends

backwards half the length of the eyes, in front of each of

which is a lateral depression. ‘The labrum is very short,

transverse, broad, with the fore-margin moderately emar-

ginate. The mentum is broad, with the lateral anterior

angles rounded, the disc marked with shallow cicatricose

punctures. The mandibles are sickle-shaped, twice the

length of the head, with a large, nearly central, tooth

arising on the upper edge, and slightly porrected. ‘The

prothorax is transverse, with the front rather wider

than the head, having the anterior angles slightly dilated

and rounded, and the hind ones oblique; the disc is

entirely even, without sulci or impressions, the whole,

hke the head, being opaque, and, when seen with a strong

lens, entirely covered with exceedingly minute granula-

tions. The elytra are oblong, slightly wider in the

middle, where they are equal in breadth to the middle

of the prothorax; they also are opaque, except along

the sides of the suture and about the scutellum, where

they (as well as the scutellum itself) are polished; the

humeral angles are elevated. The disc is destitute of

coste or sulci. The fore legs have the tibiz rather

narrow, and armed with about eight teeth on the outer

margin. The four hind tibizw are also rather slender,

with a spine on the middle of each on the outer edge.

Dorcus GLABRIPENNIS, n. Sp.

(Plate VIII. fig. 6.)

Niger, subopacus, elytris glabris, capite prothorace

minori, ante oculos parum dilatato, labro brevi, transverso,

margine antico recto, mandibulis capitis longitudine, dente

forte conico medio, denticulisque duobus inter hunc et

apicem armatis, prothoracis lateribus antice rotundato-

dilatatis, angulis posticis obliquis; elytris prothorace

angustioribus, costis nonnullis, valde indistinctis, notatis ;

Mas.

Long. corp. lin. 15; mand. lin, 3$.

Hab.—In India orientali, Kasyah Hills. In Mus. Parry.

This insect is about equal in size to the preceding, but

the mandibles are shorter, and the polished elytra, marked

with several very indistinct cost, distinguish it from

that species. The head is transverse, narrower than the

360 Prof. Westwood on

prothorax, with a slight obtuse angle on each side behind

the eyes; the canthus extends about half through the

eyes, and is but slightly dilated im front of them. The

labrum is short, transverse, with the fore-margin nearly

straight, the anterior lateral angles prominent and acute.

The mandibles are about the length of the head, they are

falcate, acute at the tips, with a large triangular flattened

tooth in the middle of the inner edge, beyond which, or

rather arising on the anterior edge of the tooth itself,

is a very minute tooth, and there is another equally

minute and erect on the upper edge near the tip, and so

placed that it is not visible when seen vertically. The

mentum is very broad, with the anterior lateral angles

rounded, the fore margin nearly straight, and the disc

(like the remainder of the head, except the jugulum)

covered with very minute granulations when seen with

a lens, and marked with large shallow cicatricose punc-

tures. The upper surface of the head is almost flat and

even, with a very slight trace of a depression in the mid-

dle near the prothorax. The prothorax is wider than the

head, but very slightly convex on the disc, the centre of

which exhibits a very faint longitudinal depression ; the

anterior half of the lateral margin is dilated and rounded,

and the hinder angles are oblique; the whole of the

lateral and posterior sides have a slender, but distinct,

margin; the upper surface is very delicately granulated

like the head. The elytra are narrower than the pro-

thorax, moderately convex, polished, but when seen with

a lens they are delicately punctured ; the humeral angles

are prominent, and the disc of each is marked with

several very indistinct raised longitudinal lines, scarcely

visible beyond the middle. The anterior tibiz are mo-

derately slender, finely crenulated on the outer edge with

six marginal teeth; the four hind legs are moderately

slender, with a spur in the middle of the outer edge of

each of the four posterior tibiz; the prosternum is rather

wide, with a groove between the base of the fore-legs ;

the metasternum and abdomen are polished, and delicately

punctured.

Nicipius Parryi, Bates.

(Plate VIII. fig. 1, male.)

“ Oblongus, niger, nitidus ; capite quam thorax paulo

angustiore, lateribus ante oculos rotundato-dilatato haud

Tucanide. 361

angulato, fronte depressa sparsim minus grosse punc-

tata; mandibulis maris porrectis, apice recurvatis, supra

rugoso-punctatis, absque dente erecto, intus obtuse den-

tatis; thorace angulis anticis obtusis, margine laterali

antice incrassato, medio valde emarginato, angulis posticis

late rotundatis, supra levi, nitido, sulco dorsali abbre-

viato rugoso, plaga parva utrinque laterali punctata;

elytris late punctato-sulcatis.”

Long. mand. excl. 114 lin.; mand. 14 lin. Mas.

Nigidius Parryi, Bates, in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, p.

347,

Hab.—In Insula Formosa. In Mus. Parry.

“A more elongated insect than the other two conti-

nental Asiatic species (N. cornutus and N. obesus), and

differing from all the allied species in wanting the erect

tooth, or horn-shaped dorsal apophysis of the mandibles.

The sides of the head are rounded before the eyes, and

not produced into a point; the thorax has the lateral

margin excavated in the middle. The sulci of the elytra

are wide and deep, and have a chain of fovez, but are

destitute of the lines of fine punctures seen in N. lwvwi-

collis; the interstices are narrow, polished, and impunc-

tate.”

In addition to the above character given by Mr.

Bates, it is to be noticed that the clypeus is produced in

front into an obtuse point, the disc of the head is fur-

nished with a central impression, deepest behind. The

eyes are completely divided by the canthus; the maxillz

have the inner lobe armed with a strong horny tooth,

which leads me to suppose that the specimen described

by Mr. Bates and the one here figured, are females. The

mentum is very deeply emarginate in front, and widely

punctured ; the anterior margin of the pronotum is

narrowly depressed, strongly punctate, behind which the

disc is raised on each side, with a sharp small central

raised tubercle. The striz of the elytra, near the suture,

are slightly curved, and not parallel therewith ; the an-

terior tibize have seven or eight teeth on the outer

margin, and the four hind tibie have a rather strong

central spine, preceded, in the middle pair by three, and

in the hind pair by two, more minute spines.

362 Prof. Westwood on

LissOTES FURCICORNIS, N. sp.

(Plate IX. fig.-3.)

Niger, punctatissimus ; elytris magis cicatricosis; pro-

thorace maris transverso quadrato, lateribus rectis; capite

latissimo ad angulos anticos tuberculo elevato matracter ;

mandibulis maris magnis, furcatis, furcis equalibus, mterna

sub-porrecta subconica, apicali conica erecta; prothoracis

dorso leviter canaliculato ; elytris dimidiatim costatis.

Long. corp. ¢ lin. 64-74; mand. lin. 1: 9? ln. 7.

Hab.—In Alpibus Victorize Australasiz. D. Howitt,

& @. In Mus. Oxonie.

This species is well distinguished by the transversely

quadrate prothorax, and furcate mandibles of the male,

the two branches of the furcation being of nearly equal

size. The head of the male is transverse, regularly sloped

from the crown to the front; the sides rather square, the

anterior angles truncate, with each end of the truncature

rounded ; the lateral angle behind the eye is also rounded,

in front of each eye is an elevated obtuse tubercle; the

disc of the head is strongly punctured; the labrum is very

shortly and slightly trilobed and setose; the mandibles

of the male are about the length of the head, strong and

much curved, they have a minute angular internal pro-

jection at the base, and they are deeply cleft in the

middle, into two large nearly equal sized obtuse teeth, of

which the inner is horizontal, and exhibits traces of one

or two notches below the apex; the outer or upper tooth

is somewhat vertically elevated. ‘The mentum is trans-

verse, with the anterior lateral angles rounded off; it is

strongly punctured, with the anterior margin setose, and

conceals the maxille and labium; the former have the

terminal lobes moderately setose, the inner one being

rather longer than the outer, and produced into a straight

point in the male, but in the female (fig. 3e) it forms a

strong acute hook. The labium is somewhat vase shaped,

strongly setose in front, and the labial palpi have the basal

joint slender and slightly curved, the second joint short,

and the third somewhat clavate and curved. (In fioure

3c, the labium and palpi are represented as detached

from the inner surface of the mentum, in front of which

they are placed separately, to show their relative size and

form.) The prothorax in the male is much shorter than

wide, being slightly wider than the head, with the lateral

Luecanide. 3638

margins nearly straight and parallel, with a slender lateral

slightly crenulated edge. The disc is not so rudely punc-

tured as the head, the punctures placed irregularly, so as

to leave various small polished spaces ; the disc has a slight

central impression, widest across the centre, and a smaller

one on each side; the hinder angles are rounded, and the

middle of the hind margin straight. The scutellum is very

small and triangular. The elytra are narrower than the

prothorax in the male, with the sides nearly parallel; they

are rugosely and irregularly punctured, and cicatricose,

with the suture alittle elevated ; they have two ill-defined

costz on the disc, extending from the base to beyond the

middle; the apex of the elytra is regularly rounded.

The legs are rather slender; the anterior tibize with seven

or eight small teeth on the outer edge, and the four pos-

terior tibiee with a small central spine on the outer edge.

The female is smaller than the male, and elongate

ovate, with the head small, and destitute of the tubercles

of the male; the mandibles small and curved, with a

central tooth on the inner edge. The prothorax has the

lateral margins rounded, somewhat narrowed towards

the head, and crenulated with a slight central depression,

and a small smooth space on each side. The elytra are

more ovate, quite as broad as the prothorax, the whole

upper surface is more thickly punctured than in the

male ; the legs are slender, the outer edge of the fore

tibize with only five teeth. The mentum in this sex is

wider in front than behind, and strongly punctured.

T am indebted to Dr. Howitt for both sexes of this species,

obtained by him from the Alps of Victoria, about sixty

miles north-east from Melbourne, the female being very

rare: and have adopted the manuscript name proposed

by him for the species. I also purchased a specimen of

the male from Mr. Du Boulay’s collection, but was unable

to ascertain whether he had collected it himself, at Swan

River, or had obtained it from some other collector in

Australia.

LiIssOTES LATIDENS, N. sp.

(Plate IX. fig. 4.)

Mas. Niger, punctatissimus, capitis angulis anticis

oblique subtruncatis, canthi oculorum angulo postico

rotundato, mandibulis fere capitis longitudine, curvatis,

364 Prof. Westwood on

apice obtuso, intus basin versus dente maximo quadrato

armatis ; prothoracis lateribus subrotundatis.

Long. corp. fere lin. 7; mand. fere lin. 1.

Hab.—In Insula Maria et littora versus Tasmaniz.

D. Howitt. In Mus. Oxonie.

The singularly robust tooth near the base of the inner

edge of the mandibles, the oblique anterior angles of the

head, and the rounded lateral margins of the prothorax,

distinguish the males of this species.

The whole surface is strongly and closely punctured,

the punctures of the elytra beimg more elongated and

occasionally confluent; the head is narrower than the

prothorax, with a slightly prominent tubercle on each

side at the base; the anterior angles of the head are

obliquely rounded off, the posterior portion of this

lateral margin being thin, and forming the canthus of

the eye. The labrum is small, and very slightly pro-

duced; the mandibles are about as long as the head,

strongly curved and sickle-shaped, the tip obtuse, and

the inner edge furnished with a large, nearly square and

flattened tooth, emarginate on its inner edge, as though

it were formed of two obtuse teeth which had become

confluent ; beneath, this broad tooth is convex, and finely

punctured. The mentum is transverse, with the anterior

angles rounded and the surface punctured ; the protho-

rax is transverse, wider than the head, and as wide in

the middle as the widest part of the elytra (which are

represented in figure 4 as rather too wide across the

middle) ; the disc of the prothorax has a slight longitu-

dinal central depressed line, and there is a small rounded

impression between the middle and the lateral margin ;

the posterior part of the lateral margins of the prothorax

are rounded off, but the hinder angle itself, on each side,

is very slightly produced opposite the humeral angles of

the elytra. The scutellum is minute, and on each side

of the suture of the elytra is an impressed longitudinal

hne, formed by a series of confluent punctures, of which

also there are several others on each elytron, which do

not extend beyond two-thirds of their length. The legs

are moderately slender, the anterior tibiz with five or

six obtuse teeth on the outer margin, and the four pos-

terior tibiae with a small spine in the middle of their

outer edge.

Lucanide. 365

Dr. Howitt kindly sent me a specimen of the male of

this species, of which sex he had seen five specimens; the

individual forwarded to me not bemg much more than

half the size of one of his examples. They are from

Maria island, and the east coast of Tasmania.

The female is unknown.

Lissores LAUNCESTONI, n. sp.

(Plate IX. fig. 1.)

Gracilis, subdepressus, niger punctatissimus, mandi-

bulis maris curvatis, apice subporrectis, intus ultra medium

dente subovato composito, armatis ; prothorace transverso

caput versus paullo angustiori.

Long. corp. lin. 6; mand. lin. 1.

Hab.—Launceston, Tasmania; mense Martis. D.

Howitt. In Mus. Oxonie.

I am indebted to Dr. Howitt for a specimen of the male

of this species, which, as he remarks, is “ much lke

DL. obtusatus, but narrower in form, with the mandibles

more long and slender. I have never seen a specimen

of this form from the south of Tasmania; the female is

equally elongate with the males.” It differs, moreover,

in its depressed elytra, and in the much more strongly

punctured upper surface of the body, especially of the

prothorax.

The head is narrower than the prothorax, with the

front part semicircularly sloping down to the labrum,

which is minute and conical, with a small slightly raised

tubercle on each side, near the base of the mandibles ;

the lateral margins of the head, in front of the eyes, are

obliquely truncate and thin, the hind part forming an

obtuse canthus of each eye. The mandibles are about

the same length as the head, each with a small triangular

tooth near the base of the inner margin, the apex por-

rected and obtuse, with a somewhat oval tooth, or dilata-

tion, on the inner edge of the mandible, beyond the

middle, on which are the obtuse-rudiments of tubercles.

The prothorax is transversely subquadrate, the lateral

margins slightly inclining towards the head, the centre

of the disc being slightly impressed with a longitudinal

TRANS, ENT. soc. 1871.—rartT I. (auaustT.) oc

366 Prof. Westwood on

channel; the elytra are of equal width with the protho-

rax, and are more thickly produced than the other parts

of the body; they have the lateral margins nearly

parallel, the disc marked with several very faint longitu-

dinal carine, and the sutural portion is flattened.

The legs are moderately slender, the anterior tibie

with a few small irregular teeth, and the four hind ones

with a small spine in the middle of their outer edge.

This species is destitute of wings.

LissOTES FORCIPULA, Nl. Sp.

(Plate IX. fig. 2.)

Piceo-niger, brevis, punctatus, subconvexus, labro

conico porrecto, mandibulis maris falcatis ; apicibus parum

cochleatis, sub bi-vel tridentatis, lateribus capitis ante

oculos obliquis et attenuatis, lateribus prothoracis obli-

quis, fere rectis et tenuiter marginatis et crenulatis,

angulis posticis rotundatis, disco vix longitudinaliter in

medio impresso; elytris brevibus subovatis et subcon-

Yexis punctatissimis; tibiis anticis dentibus 5 extus

armatis.

Long. corp. g (cum mandibulis) lin. 6 (4 unc.); long.

elytror. lin. 3.

Hab.—Tasmania. Mus. Oxon. (?), et Parry (¢).

This species is nearly allied to LD. crenatus, but differs

from it in the narrower and much less convex form of

the male, which has a much smaller head and smaller

mandibles; it has also the upper surface of the body

(especially of the head and prothorax) much more

strongly and closely punctured; the labrum, conically

produced, is also smaller, and the mandibles are less

strongly toothed at the apex. It is distinguished from

the male of Ji. obtusatus, and its allies, both by its shorter

form and differently constructed mandibles. The head

is transverse; the anterior portion forming a large

semicircular depressed space, extending from the outer

angles of the base of the mandibles nearly to the hind mar-

ein ofthe head; the front of this space is nearly smooth,

but the hind part is covered with widely dispersed circular

punctures; the lateral margins of the head in front of the

eyes are oblique and thin, rounded off to the front incision

Tucanide. 367

of the eyes; the labrum is conical, and advanced as far as

inner produced base of the mandibles, which are. sickle-

shaped, dilated at the apex into a somewhat spoon-shaped

extremity, the right mandible terminating in two obtuse

unequal teeth, whilst the left mandible is obliquely trun-

cate at the tip, with two or three slight incisions, forming

a broad obtuse compound tvoth. The prothorax in the

male is transverse, convex, smooth, with moderately

large round punctures, which are almost obsolete towards

the anterior margin; the lateral margins are slightly

crenated and oblique, but nearly straight; the anterior

angle not acute, and the posterior angles rounded off.

The elytra are short, subovate, convex, covered with

small oval punctures, with two or three very slightly

marked longitudinal carinze on each, one towards the

suture being the most distinct.

The anterior tibiz are 5-dentate on the outer edge,

the two teeth at the apex being the largest.

LisSOTES FORCIPULA, fem. ?

(Plate IX. fig. 6a, b.)

In the Hopeian Collection is preserved a small female

specimen of a Lucanideous species, which Major Parry is

inclined to regard as the female of the above described

L. forcipula. Until, however, we are able to obtain more

decisive evidence of its identity, it will be advisable

simply to record its existence. It is rather more than

five limes long; black, glossy, and thickly punctured.

The head is small, nearly flat in the middle of the anterior

portion, with a small round tubercle on each side, near

the base of the mandibles; the punctures of the head are

larger and more distinct than those of the prothorax ;

the labrum is transverse, with the middle of the front

margin porrected into a conical point ; the prothorax is

much wider than the head, with the lateral margins nar-

rowly curved towards the head, and finely crenulated ; the

posterior margin rounded, with the posterior lateral

angles rounded off. The elytra are much shorter than

those of L. obtusatus, fem.; they are subovate, widest

across the middle, each shoulder forming a sharp angle.

The disc is covered with small oblong punctures, and the

apical half finely rugulose; the punctures on the disc

cc 2

368 Prof. Westwood on

form two or three almost indistinct longitudinal striz,

in consequence of their being more or less confluent; the

anterior tibize have five teeth on their outer edge, of

which the second is by far the strongest.

Plate IX. fig. 6a, represents the head and prothorax of

this female insect; and fig. 6b, the anterior tibia.

There is no locality attached to the specimen, but I

believe I received it from Tasmania.

LISsSOTES SUBCRENATUS, n. sp. (2).

(Plate IX. fig. 5a, b.)

Piceo-niger nitidus punctatissimus, labro transverso,

antice vix bisinuato, lateribus capitis ante oculos oblique

truncatis, lateribus prothoracis subrotundatis, angulo

postico laterali parum prominulo.

Long. corp. lin. 44 (9 mill.).

Hab.—Tasmania. In Mus. Parry.

I am only acquainted with a single female of this in-

sect, which differs so much from the females of the other

known species of the genus, that I am reluctantly com-

pelled to describe it as distinct, in the absence of its

male.

It is considerably smaller than the L. crenatus, female ;

the head and pronotum are much more numerously

and closely punctured, the disc of the head is flat, and

gradually slanting; the sides, between the eyes and the

outside of the base of the mandibles, are obliquely trun-

cate and depressed, so as to leave a slight longitudinal

carina on either side running backwards from the man-

dibles ; the anterior canthus of the eyes is rounded off.

The labrum is transverse, with the lateral angles rounded

off, and the fore-margin very slightly bisinuate, the

central portion formed by this bisinuation not more pro-

minent than the side portions. The mandibles are small,

curved, dilated inwards at the base, the apex of each

forming a strong conical tooth, below which is a second

smaller tooth, unequal both in size and position, in the

two mandibles; the prothorax is transverse and convex,

the anterior lateral angles slightly rounded; the disc

with a slight central longitudinal channel; the sides are

regularly curved and subserrate, the widest part being

Tuecanide. 369

beyond the middle, the posterior lateral angles are slightly

prominent. The elytra are subovate, convex, setose,

covered with oval punctures, considerably smaller than

those of the pronotum, with two or three very slightly

marked slender costa on each. The anterior tibiz are

very broad, and bidentate at the tips, with two smaller

teeth on the middle of the outer edge.

Lissotes Howrrranus, Westw.*

(Plate IX. fig. 7a, b, c, d.)

Dr. Howitt having been so kind as to send me speci-

mens of both sexes, of this very remarkable species, from

the alps of Victoria, I am enabled to supply the omissions

in my original description, by giving the characters of

the female, and illustrating the parts of the mouth of both

sexes.

The female is as large as the male, being one inch and

two lines long; glossy black; the head is much smaller

than that of the male, and much narrower than the pro-

thorax, it is strongly swollen on each side behind the

eyes, the upper and under portions of which are entirely

separated by the canthus (as in the male); the front of

the head slopes down gradually, forming a large semi-

* Dorcus Howittanus, Westw., Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 3rd ser., vol. 1,

pl. 21, fig. 1. Lssotes (Sect. II.) Howittanus, Parry, Trans. Ent. Soe.,

3rd ser., vol. 2, pp. 90, 97. Lissapterus Howittanus (Deyrolle) Parry, Trans.

Ent. Soc., 1870, p. 114.

The genus Lissapterus of Deyrolle, to which this insect is assigned by

Major Parry in his last Catalogue of the family, must be unpublished,

since I am unable to find any such, either in his Memoir in the ‘ Ann. de

la Soc. Ent. France,’ for 1864; or in the ‘Ann. Soe. Ent. Belge,’ for 1865,

vol. ix. From the name, it may be inferred that, the apterous condition

of D. Howittanus had induced its generic separation, but, both sexes

of L. obtusatus, and as we have seen above, the male of L. Launcestoni

(which cannot be separated from the other Australian species) are desti-

tute of wings. A more important character, namely the unarmed condi-

tion of the inner lobe of the maxille of both sexes of D. Howittanus, as

well as the singular cucullated head of the male, might suffice for the

establishment of a separate generic group, but they seem outweighed by

the identity in the general characteristics of the species. The inner lobe

of the maxilla is also destitute of a hook in L. crenatus (see Trans. Ent.

Soc., n. s., vol. 3, pl. xii. £. 3b).

370 Prof. Westwood on

circular depression, with a tubercle on each side near the

base of the mandibles. The latter are short, subtriangular,

with two teeth on the inner edge.

Plate IX. fig. 7a, represents the head of the male (re-

duced in size in comparison with fig. 7c, which represents

the head of the female). The broad tooth on the inner

edge of each of the mandibles of the males, is more con-

spicuous in some individuals than in others; thus, in my

figure of the male above referred to, it is scarcely per-

ceivable.

The maxille in both sexes are simple, those of the

female being destitute of the strong hook at the extremity

of the inner lobe. Fig. 7b, represents the maxilla of the

male; and 7d, that of the female.

The prothorax of the female is transverse, with the

lateral margins rounded, the anterior portion being as

wide as the hinder; the disc is covered with punctures,

those of the centre being smaller than the rest, without

any of the smooth spaces or the rude punctures seen in

parts of the prothorax of the male. The elytra are much

more punctate than the male, the punctures extending

to the extremity, and there is a broad, flat, smooth stria

on each elytron adjoining the suture, as well as two on

the disc of each, separated by punctures, which gradually

disappear beyond their middle; the legs resemble those

of the male, the anterior tibie of the male being armed

on the outer edge with several (three or four) minute

teeth, which are not represented in the figure published

in Trans. Ent. Soc. drd ser., vol. I. pl. xxi. f. 1. The an-

terior tibiz of the female exactly resemble those of the

male.

In several of his memoirs on this family (especially in

the Transactions of the Entomological Society for 1864

and 1870), Major Parry has suggested that the unique

insect in the British Museum from Moreton Bay, which

I described under the name of Dorcus Pelorides (Trans.

Ent. Soc. 3rd ser. vol. I. pl. xxi. fig. 2) may be the

female of L. Howittanus. This supposition is now dis-

proved by the discovery of the true female by Dr. Howitt.

The chief distinctions between these two females may be

thus contrasted.

Lucanide. a7L

D, Howittanus.

Body subconvex; with parallel

sides : upper surface of body strongly

punctured.

Lateral anterior angles of the

head with a sharply defined oblique

ridge extending towards the middle

of the crown.

D, Pelorides.

Body subdepressed, of a more

elongate ovate form: upper surface

of body very glossy and slightly

punctured.

Lateral anterior angles of the

head with a raised round tubercle

near the base of the antenne.

Canthus of the eye moderate, Omnthus of the eye forming w

quure. rounded, flat, exserted lobe.

Hind angles of the head mo- ;

dente. Hind angles of the head strongly

Prothorax with a depressed space predused:

on each side towards the anterior

lateral angles.

Elytra costated, cost flattened,

the intervening spaces strongly

punctured.

Prothorax with an impressed

puncture towards the posterior

lateral angles.

Elytra not costated, nor strongly

punctured.

Note on Lissotes cancroides.

Fabr.)

(Lucanus cancroides,

The original type specimen of this species, described

by Fabricius and figured by Olivier, is now preserved in

the British Museum, and does not exactly agree with any

specimens of the genus since received from Australia.

It is a male measuring seven lines in length, not includ-

ing the mandibles, which are one line long; the head has

the crown gradually sloping to the anterior edge, not

retuse, as it is in the specimens which have been named

curvicornis ; the anterior lateral angles are oblique, shghtly

emarginate, their posterior part forming an obtuse can-

thus, extending a short distance into the front of the

eyes; the head behind the eyes is wider than the mid-

dle, and produced into an obtuse tubercle, and there

is a raised tubercle on each side behind the outer

base of the mandibles, which agree with those of the

specimens, which I have termed sub-tuberculatus (Trans.

Pits OC gio. As a, D2L0, pl...xu. f. 2)... The. pro-

thorax is transversely quadrate; the anterior margin

bisinuate, with a small simple (not bipartite) raised

372 Prof. Westwood on

tubercle in the middle, close to the fore-margin ; the

anterior lateral angles are slightly produced in front, and

rounded, and the sides are slightly emarginate at about

one third of their length from the front angles; the pos-

terior angles are obtuse, the junction of the lateral and

hind-margin being indicated by a minute angular projec-

tion; the disc of the prothorax is nearly smooth and

impunctate, with a central, rather strong longitudinal

sulcus, which is deeply punctured ; the prothorax is nar-

rower than in D. obtusatus, with the sides much less

strongly punctured than in D. subtuberculatus; the

elytra are more elongate and narrrower than in the spe-

cimens usually named L. cancroides and obtusatus, and

much less strongly setose at the sides, they are also not

so strongly or so thickly punctured as in the allied species.

The anterior tibiz are armed with ten teeth on the outer

edge, those nearest the femora being very much dimin-

ished in size.

The description of this species given by me in the

Entomological Magazine (vol. V. p. 267), was taken

from the original individual, at that time im the posses-

sion of the Linnean Society ; but in the coarse wood-cut

several minute details were omitted, such as the frontal

tubercle of the prothorax (which appears in my original

drawing), the peculiar form of the canthus of the eyes,

and posterior angles of the prothorax, &c.

M. Boisduval has given a description, in the voyage

of the “ Astrolabe” (p. 234), of an insect said to be from

New Guinea, in the collection of M. Dupont, under the

name of JL. caneroides, which “ différe un peu de Vindi-

vidu figuré par Olivier.” He describes the prothorax as

marked with two impressed fovez, and the elytra as

pubescent, covered with punctures “ avec quelques cétés

tres peu marquées. It is probably distinct from Olivier’s

insect.

In the British Museum a female belonging to this

genus, from Melbourne, is labelled as the female of L.

cancroides, but I believe that identification is simply

conjectural ; the head is strongly punctured, the angle

of the canthus in front of the eyes strongly defined, the

crown gradually sloping to the anterior margin, the pro-

thorax destitute of a frontal tubercle, the surface punc-

tured all over, but more delicately on each side of the

Lucanide. 370

central sulcus; the posterior lateral angles are obtuse,

and slightly emarginate. It is 7} lines long, including

the mandibles.

From the preceding observations it would appear, that

these Tasmanian species may be thus distinguished, so

far as the males are concerned.

A. Those with the posterior lateral angles of the pro-

thorax oblique, with a prominent angle opposite

the shoulders of the elytra.

a. Those with the fore-margin of the prothorax

anteriorly produced in the middle.

* Prothorax with a small central frontal

polished tubercle. 1. L. cancroides.

** Prothorax with two small tubercles con-

joined in middle of front margin of

prothorax. 2. L. subtuberculatus.

b. Those with the fore-margin of the prothorax

straight; front of head strongly retuse.

3. L. curvicornis, Latr.

B. Those with the posterior lateral margins of the

prothorax rounded.

4. LD. Launceston.

5. LL. obtusatus.

6. (?) DL. obtusatus, var. dimidio minor, man-

dibulis multo minoribus, dente apicali

cum dente lato medio coalito.

Mount Wellington, March, 1866. Dr.

Howitt.

Explanation of Plates.

Puate VIII.

Fig. 1. Nigidius Parryi (slightly magnified) ; la, maxilla; 1b, mentum ;

1c, antenna.

2. Dorcus ratiocinativus, g (nat. size); 2a, maxilla; 2b, mentum,

and one of the labial palpi; 2c, terminal joints of antenna.

3. Dorcus rudis, 2 (rather magnified); 3a, head, seen from above ;

3b, maxilla; 3c, mentum ; 3d, labrum and labial palpi.

374

Prof. Westwood on Lucanide.

Vig. 4. Rhetulus crenatus, g (nat. size); 4a, underside of the head

Soe ON ee

with basal portion of one of the mandibles, showing the jugu-

lum, mentum, labial hairs, and terminal joint of the labial

palpi, and end of one extremity of the second joint of the other

maxillary palpus; 4b, one of the eyes, seen laterally, showing

the canthus extended into its upper part; 4c, right mandible,

seen laterally from within; 4d, maxilla with its palpus; 4e,

mentum, seen within, showing the labium and labial palpi;

4f, one of the antennz (mis-lettered 4c, in middle of the right

side of the plate).

Dorcus suturalis.

Dorcus glabripeniis.

Prate IX.

Lissotes Launceston, g ; 1a, head slightly magnified.

Lissotes forcipula, g ; 2a, head much magnified.

Lissotes furcicornis, g; 3a, head magnified; 3b, maxilla; 3c,

mentum, with the labrum and palpi detached from within the

mentum, and represented in front of the latter; 3d, head and

prothorax of 2 ; 8e, maxilla of ditto; 3f, mentum of ditto.

Lissotes latridens, g ; 4a, head much magnified.

Lissotes subcrenatus, 2, head and prothorax; 5b, anterior tibiez.

Lissotes forcipula, 9 ? (see pp. 367, 368).

Lissotes Howittanus (see p. 372).

(375 )

XI. Descriptions of a new genus, and of two new species

of Longicorn Coleoptera. By H. W. Bares,

F.Z.S., &c.

[Read Ist May, 1871.]

Genus Bo.porritus, nov. gen.

(Sub.-fam. Cerambycine vere.)

Mas. Corpus cylindricum, robustum. Caput crassum

pone oculos haud constrictum. Antenne breves, humeros

elytrorum paulo superantes; articulo tertio maxime am-

pliato, ovato, crasso, paulo compresso; 4to lato in apice

articulo tertii incluso ; articulis 5-7 brevibus ovatis; 8-11

linearibus lateribus sulcatis, ultimo longiori acuminato.

Thorax transversim quadratus,inermis. lytra parallelo-

erammica apice rotundata. Pedes breves robusti; tibize

compresse ; tarsi breves, articulo 3i0 lobis brevibus,

angustis, 4to ceteris conjunctis paululum breviori crasso.

Prosternum arcuatum, mesosternum simplex; acetabula

antica extus longe angulata. Abdomen postice vix an-

gustatum, segmentis singulis convexis, ultimo latissimo

et brevissimo.

Bolbotritus Bainesi, un. sp.

Fusco-castaneus, capite et thorace obscurioribus, cre-

berrime punctulatis et rugulosis ; antennis articulis basali

obscuriori rugoso, tertio punctulato, ceeteris nitidis ; ely-

tris subtiliter coriaceis nitidis, leviter bicostatis ; pectore

et abdomine punctulatis.

Long. 2 une.

Hab.—Ad ripas fluminis Mungwe in terris Matabilio-

rum, Afric Australis, in lat. 20°, 45’; A viatore insigne

Thom. Baines capto.

This singular species belongs, without doubt, to section

A of Lacordaire’s Group Cerambycides vrais, and to divi-

sion I. of the same section; the lower lobe of the eyes

not advancing beyond the antenniferous tubercles. ‘The

extreme shortness of the antenne makes it an exception

to the general character of the group, but it is clear that

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PaRT I. (AUGUST.)

376 Mr. H. W. Bates on Longicorn Coleoptera.

their form is only an exaggeration, or an extreme deve-

lopment, of the well-known structure, common in the

males of the group, in which the third to fifth joints are

more or less swollen. In Bolbotritus the bulbous enlarge-

ment of the third joint is enormous, encasing in its apex

the enlarged third joint, and even to some extent, also the

fifth, which appears only as a prominent tubercle at the

end of the bulb ; and this excessive enlargement appears

to have been obtained at the expense of the remaining

joints of the antenne, which are extraordinarily short-

ened. The insect is interesting, as an illustration of the

tendency so wonderfully displayed by the Longicornia

to extreme developments of any variable feature, in species

otherwise closely allied. This tendency is carried some-

times to such a length, that the affinities of the modified

forms are no longer recognizable, and hence the unusual

difficulties often complained of as attendant on their

classification.

Mallaspis preecellens, n. sp.

M. Beltii affinis, multo angustior et gracilior. Leete

zenea, nitida; capite aurato valde elongato grosse haud

profunde subrugoso-punctato, supra late sulcato; antennis

corpore vix brevioribus, articulis basalibus auratis, 6-7

violaceis, reliquis nigris, omnino linearibus, punctatis, 3-4

paulo latioribus subplanatis, 6-7 breviter sparsim denti-

culatis; thorace quam in M. Beltii multo angustiori, spina

mediana valida, antice et postice sequaliter angustato,

supra discrete passim punctate; scutello lete aureo-

sericeo ; elytris elongatis postice paulo angustatis, supra

basin ad paulo convexis creberrime subtiliter ruguloso-

punctatis, basi multo levioribus nitidis ; pedibus elon-

gatis, sneo-auratis, tarsis violaceis; femoribus anticis

grosse granulatis ; corpore subtus cupreo-zneo splendido.

Long. 1 unc. 8 lin.; lat. pone humeros 6 lin. ¢.

Hab.—Chiriqui, near Panama.

Two specimens in the British Museum, and one in my

own collection. The species is very distinct from all

hitherto known. The rich intense metallic hues of its

antennee and legs, at once distinguish it from all others

having linear antennal joints.

( 377 )

XII. Descriptions of three new species of Cicindelide.

By H. W. Batss, F.Z.8., &c.

[Read 3rd July, 1871.]

Oxygonia albitenia, n. sp.

Caput et thorax breves, angusti; elytris duplo latiori-

bus maxime elongatis, apice utrinque in dente acuta

prolongatis. Supra obscure znea, thorace lateribus lete

cupreis, elytris olivaceo-viridibus nitidis; labro nigro,

utrinque macula pallide testacea, transverso, angulis

oblique truncatis, medio obtuse producto ; antennis ni-

gris; palpis gracilibus, pallidis, articulis apicalibus nigris ;

capite thoraceque omnino subtiliter strigosis, hoc postice

profunde transversim sulcato antice supra sulco vix

impresso, linea longitudinali modice impressa, disco vix

convexo, lateribus paululum rotundatis; elytris passim

equaliter discrete punctulatis, supra ineequalibus, apice de-

presso-explanatis ; juxta marginem vitta alba ab humeris

usque prope apicem extensa, marginem haud attingenti,

juxta humeros angustata, apud medium breviter dilatata ;

corpore subtus aureo-cupreo splendido; pedibus nigro-

zeneis, femoribus viridibus, coxis et femoribus albo pilosis.

3 segmento sexto ventrali medio profunde emarginato.

Long. 7 lin. g.

Evidently allied to Oxygonia Schenherri (Mannerh.),

from which it differs in the broad white lateral stripe

(instead of three spots) of the elytra, and, according to

the description, in the form of the thorax. The apex of

the elytra is not truncate, neither is the spine sutural, but

the whole apex is prolonged into a broad and sharp tooth.

Hab.—New Granada.

Oxygonia cyanopis, n. sp.

Viridi-cyanea splendida, thorace brevi cylindrico ; ely-

tris triplo latioribus, valde elongatis, apice (¢ ) explanatis

sinuatim truncatis, spina suturali modice elongata; labro

transverso, angulis rotundatis medio dente elevato armato,

nigro, macula utrinque testaceo; palpis testaceis, maxill.

articulis 2 ultimis, labial. 1 nigris; antennis nigris; capite

thoraceque supra subtiliter strigosis: hoc lateribus paul-

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PART UI. (AUGUST.)

378 Mr. H. W. Bates on

lulum rotundatis, sulco basali supra profundo, apicali vix

impresso, linea dorsali modice impressa, disco utrinque

vix convexo ; elytris inzequalibus, passim discrete punc-

tulatis, utrinque maculis duabus rotundatis lateralibus

albis, una mox pone medium, altera intra angulum ex-

ternum apicis, ambabus a marginem paulo distantibus ;

corpore subtus lete viridi-zeneo, pectore pedibusque ni-

gris; coxis et femoribus sparsim albopilosis.

ong 305 line 2%

Hab.—New Granada.

Apparently allied to O. prodiga, Krichs., which differs

in having three white spots on each elytron, and in the

sides being cupreous. In O. cyanopis, there is no trace

of cupreous, the elytra being of a fine dark blue, with a

ereenish tinge in certain lhghts, and a trace of violet on

the sides about the middle; the sides and flanks of the

thorax, ike nearly the whole of the under-surface, are

brilliant brassy-green. The description by Hrichson is so

brief and incomplete, that there is no means of knowing

whether his insect really belongs to the genus, and the

species would have to be set aside as indeterminable, if

we had not an indirect redescription by Chaudoir, in his

comparison of O. Vuillefroyi (Rev. Mag. Zool., Jan. 1869).

The genus Oxygonia, comprising a small number of

species of very great rarity in collections, has generally

been ill-understood by authors. According to most

authorities, its affinities are with Iresia and Huprosopus ;

but Chaudoir, correcting his previous views, placed it

rightly, in his ‘ Catalogue of Cicindelide” (Brussels,

1865), in the immediate neighbourhood of Odontocheila

and Thopeutica, an arrangement which was unnecessarily

perverted afterwards in Harold and Gemminger’s “ Cata-

logus.” The genus, in fact, is very closely allied to

Phyllodroma, Odontocheila, and allies; agreemg with

them in the simple palpi, grooved tarsi, and slender form

of body, and differing from Jresia and Huprosopus in the

absence of frontal grooves, separating the middle of the

forehead from the inner orbits of the eyes. Its pecu-

harities are the spined apices of the femora, and the

nearly smooth punctulate surface of the elytra. Although

the definite structural differences are but slight, the

genus forms a most natural group, as manifested by

numerous minor characters, such as the fine striation of

the thorax, the tooth-like projections at the apex of the

new species of Cicindelide. 379

elytra, the style of coloration and markings, and the

large size of its elytra and “after-body,” compared with

the head and thorax. Six species are now known, viz.,

five from the Andes (near the Equator) , and one of much

smaller size from South Brazil. Although nothing is

recorded of their habits, I have no doubt they resemble

those of the Odontocheile, and that they live in the

shades of the virgin forest, flying about low bushes,

especially on the humid margins of rivulets and mountain

torrents.

Cicindela Crespignyi, n. sp.

Quoad labrum sectionem Calochroa pertinens, C. lach-

rymans (Schaum.) et C. flavovittata (Chaud.) affinis;

forma CO. Vasseletti (Chevr.) simillima. Viridi-zenea, infra

nitida, supra capite et thorace obscurioribus; elytris oli-

vaceis postice lete viridi-sericeis, aurantiaco maculatis ;

capite subopaco, subtiliter ruguloso, prope oculos strigoso ;

labro albo, medio producto (? magis ¢ minus) triden-

tato, dente mediana magna; palpis omnino eneis; antennis

articulo 1 cupreo 2-4 viridi-zeneis; thorace cylindrico

subtiliter ruguloso, subopaco: sulco posteriori profunde,

anteriori leviter, impresso ; elytris elongato-ovatis utroque

sexu apice obtuse rotundatis, angulo suturali spinoso,

supra punctis opacis grossis haud profundis passim

sparsis, fascia obliqua abbreviata pone medium vittaque

postica trianguliformi eo adnexa, aurantiacis; corpore

subtus lateribus griseo piloso.

Long. 6 lin. g 9 exempla plurima.

Hab.—Interior of Northern Borneo; taken by Lieut.

de Crespigny. —

The markings of the elytra are unlike those of any other

described species; the ground-colour is opaque, greenish

or olivaceous, with a changing light-greenish silky gloss,

especially on the hinder half, where a deeper and bluer

tint surrounds the orange-coloured markings; these

latter form on each elytron a hammer-shaped figure, con-

sisting of a broad oblique spot or fascia across the disc

behind the middle, touching neither the suture nor the

lateral margin, and a longitudinal stripe proceeding from

the middle of the hind-margin of the fascia and extend-

ing very near to the apex, where it is much dilated; in

some examples it is detached from the fascia.

(38h)

XIII. Descriptions of new genera, and of some recently

discovered species of Australian Phytophaga.

By J.S.Bary, EES:

[Read 5th June, 1871

List of Species.

1. Duboulaia (n. g.) fulvipennis. 12. Ditropidus fulvus.

2. Carpophagus excavatus. 13. . dimidiatus.

3. Elaphodus albo-hirsutus. 14. fy biplagiatus.

-4. Ditropidus carbonarius. | 15. Lachnabothra Hope.

5. > hirticollis. 16. be Breweri.

6. 3 Duboulai. ile > integra.

Te re strigosus. 18. "4 Wilsoni.

8. oF rufo-cwpreus. 19. 5 Waterhousei.

9. ‘ Odewahnii. 20. AS Saundersii.

10. 7 fasciatus. arate * distincta.

we Be tarsatus. | Dy. “a Duboulai.

Fam. SAGRIDAL.

Genus Dusou.ala, n. g.

Corpus subelongatum, modice convexum, non metalli-

cum, pube griseo adpresso dense vestitum ; caput exertum,

modice elongatum ; oculis integris, granulosis, vix pro-

minulis ; palpis mawillaribus articulo ultimo ovato, apice

obtuso; mento transverso; ligula apice bifida; antennis

corporis dimidio fere equalibus, filiformibus. Thorax

subcordiformis, latitudine non longior, angulis anticis

indistinctis ; elytra oblonga, convexa, glabra, irregulariter

punctata ; pedes robusti ; femoribus posticis incrassatis,

subtus spima compressa trigonata armatis; wnguiculis

simplicibus; prosternum coxis equialtum, postice non

prolongatum ; pygidium elytris non obtectum.

This genus must take an intermediate place between

Megamerus and Prionesthis, with the former it agrees in

the form of the thorax, and in the emarginate ligula, but

differs in the shorter head and antenne, less prominent

eyes, and in the form of the apical joints of the maxillary

palpi; from the latter, although agreeing in the form of

the maxillary palpi, it differs greatly, both in the form of

‘the thorax, and also in having the hinder thighs armed

beneath.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PaRT lll. (AUGUST.) DD

382 Mr. J. S. Baly on

Duboulaia flavipennis.

Subelongata, modice convexa, piceo-nigra, griseo-

sericea, antennis, clypeo antice, labroque fusco-fulvis ;

tibiis tarsisque obscure piceis; thorace crebre punctato,

dense albo sericeo; elytris tenuiter punctatis, obscure

fulvis, sutura anguste picea.

Long. 83 ln.

Hab.—Champion Bay, Western Australia; collected by

Mr. Duboulay.

Antenne half the length of the body, fusco-fulvous ;

front impressed with a longitudinal groove, which ex-

tends downwards as far as the apex of the clypeus; surface

on either side distinctly punctured, clothed with adpressed

white hairs; clypeus large, pentagonal, thickly punc-

tured; its lower edge, together with the labrum obscure

fulvous; thorax as broad as long, sides rounded and

dilated in front, constricted behind the middle; above

moderately convex, somewhat flattened on the disc,

closely covered with small, but deep and well-defined

punctures; surface clothed with adpressed whitish hairs ;

elytra much broader than the thorax, oblong, glabrous,

shining fulvous, the suture narrowly edged with piceous ;

whole surface faintly wrinkled, rather closely but finely

punctured ; hinder thighs thickened, armed beneath with

a large, flat, triangular tooth.

Genus Carpopuacus, McLeay.

Carpophagus excavatus.

Anguste oblongus, piceo-niger, pube adpresso griseo

dense vestitus ; thorace nigro, irregulariter excavato et

foveolato, interspatiis glabris, nitidis ; elytris oblongis,

postice paullo attenuatis, piceis, nitidis, profunde exca-

vato-foveolatis ; fovis magnis, substriatim dispositis,

griseo-hirsutis, interspatiis glabris, nitidis, rugulosis.

Long. 10 lin.

Hab.—Champion Bay, Western Australia; collected

by Mr. Duboulay.

Thorax longer than broad, subconic ; sides more quickly

converging near their apex; above subcylindrical,

irregularly excavated, densely clothed with adpressed

hairs; interspaces between the excavations smooth, gla-

Australian Phytophaga. 383

brous, shining black; on the centre of the disc these

interspaces are small, detached, and wart-like, but on the

sides of the thorax they are much larger and irregularly

confluent; elytra oblong, much broader at the base than

the thorax, shghtly narrowed towards their apex ; surface

covered with large, irregular, deeply excavated fovee,

whose surfaces are thickly clothed with short adpressed

griseous pubescence; these fovesw, which are arranged

in about ten longitudinal rows on each elytron, cover

nearly the whole disc, the spaces between the fovew

being shining glabrous, coarsely wrinkled, and obscure

rufo-piceous; pygidium rufo-piceous.

The specimen from which I have made the above

description is (judging from the shorter antennz and

from the very slight enlargement of the hinder femora)

a 2; the ¢ probably differs in colour from the 2, in

the same way as in VU. Banksie ; in that species, the ¢ is

obscure fulvous, whilst the 9 is lead-coloured.

Fam. CRYPTOCEPHALIDAL.

Genus Exapnopgs, Suffr.

Hlaphodes albo-hirsutus.

Anguste oblongus, obscure cupreus, pube albido adpresso

vestitus, antennarum dimidio basali, labro pedibusque

(femoribus anterioribus dorso, posticisque totis exceptis)

fulvis, tarsis antennarumque dimidio apicali piceis ; tho-

race subremote punctato; elytris tenuissime granulosis,

minute transversim rugulosis, tenuiter et subremote

punctatis, punctis ad latera seriatim dispositis.

Long. 1} lin. |

Hab.—Western Australia, Champion Bay.

Head thickly clothed with long white hairs; front

impressed with a longitudinal groove ; mouth fulvous,

apex of jaws black; antennz rather longer than the head

and thorax, the six outer joints moderately dilated, black ;

thorax twice as broad as long at the base, sides nearly

parallel behind the middle, rounded and converging in

front; apex of the basal lobe entire, its surface very

slightly reflexed ; scutellum broadly oblong-ovate ; elytra

not broader than the thorax, rather more than twice its

length, their sides parallel ; the humeral callus moderately

prominent.

DD2

384 Mr. J. 8. Baly on

Genus Drrroprpvus, EHrichs.

Ditropidus carbonarius.

Subquadratus, postice paullo attenuatus, niger, nitidus,

antennarum basi, labro mandibulisque (his apice exceptis)

fulvis, femoribus anticis, tibiis apice, tarsisque obscure

piceis ; thorace tenuiter punctato; elytris tenuissime punc-

tato-striatis, interstitiis planis, impunctatis, strus duabus

ad latum subsulcatis, interstitiis lateralibus leviter con-

vexls.

Long. 2 lin.

Hab.—Western Australia.

Head finely but distantly punctured, nearly glabrous,

only a few small white adpressed hairs being visible here

and there on the surface; eyes distant, face impressed

with a faint longitudinal lme; antenne slightly longer

than the head and thorax, five outer joints moderately

dilated, black, the remaining joints fulvous ; thorax twice

as broad at the base as long, sides rounded and converg-

ing from base to apex ; surface finely but not very closely

punctured, the puncturing more crowded on the sides ;

basal lobe distinctly notched, obsoletely reflexed; elytra

broader at the base than the thorax, twice its length,

sides shghtly narrowed from the shoulders backwards ;

surface very finely punctate-striate, the imterspaces flat,

impunctate; two outer striz subsulcate, their interspaces

shghtly convex.

Ditrepidus hirticollis.

Subquadratus, postice paullo attenuatus, convexus,

niger, pube adpresso albido vestitus, antennarum basi

labroque rufo-piceis; abdomine corporeque supra (an-

tennis apice exceptis) cupreus; thorace minute punctato,

albo-hirsuto ; elytris distincte striato-punctatis, glabris,

interstitis planis, apicem versus leviter convexiusculis,

ad latera convexis, subcostatis.

Long. 13 lin.

Hab.—Western Australia.

Upper half of head closely clothed with adpressed

white hairs; lower half of face glabrous; five upper

jomts of antenne moderately dilated; five basal joints

Australian Phytophaga. 385

obscure rufo-piceous ; labrum rufous; thorax twice as

broad at the base as long; sides rounded and converg-

ing from base to apex; surface finely and subremotely

punctured, covered with adpressed white hairs ; basal

lobe slightly reflexed, its apex very feebly notched ; scu-

tellum oblong, its apex acute ; elytra slightly broader at

the base than the thorax, regularly punctate-striate ;

interspaces plane, smooth, slightly convex towards the

apex of the elytra, those near the outer border raised

and subcostate for their whole length ; lower surface of

abdomen and pygidium closely clothed with adpressed

white pubescence, finely rugose-punctate ; pygidium as

broad at its base as long; on its medial line is seen a

faint longitudinal ridge.

Ditropidus Duboulai.

Oblongus, convexus, niger, nitidus, capite thoraceque

cupreo-zneis, mandibulis apice, antennarum articulis sex

basalibus subtus, femoribus anticis subtus, tibiis anticis

apice, labroque obscure rufo-fulvis, thorace crebre sed

tenuissime strigoso-punctato, basi linea brevi transversa

impresso; elytris obscure viridi-eneis, subfortiter striato-

punctatis, interstitis leviter convexis, transversim ru-

gulosis.

Long. | hn.

Hab.—Champion Bay.

Head remotely and very finely punctured, clothed with

long griseous hairs; six lower joints of antennee obscure

rufous, stained above with black, the remaining joints

entirely black; apex of jaws also rufous; thorax slightly

broader than the elytra; sides rounded, nearly straight

and parallel at the base, obliquely converging from the

middle to the apex; basal lobe shghtly reflexed, sepa-

rated from the disc by a slight but well-defined transverse

groove; disc very finely “punctur ed, somewhat closely

covered with faintly impressed, longitudinal strie; elytra

half as long again as the thorax, distinctly punctate-

striate, interspaces on the inner disc obsoletely, those on

the outer disc distinctly convex, transversely rugulose.

Ditropidus strigosus.

Breviter oblongus, obscure cupreus, pube adpresso

albido dense vestitus, femoribus tibusque fulvis, piceo

386 Mr. J. 8. Baly on

tinctis, tarsis piceis; supra nitido-cupreus, antennis ex-

trorsum nigris, his basi labroque fulvis; thorace pube

adpresso albido vestito, disco remote, lateribus subremote-

punctato; elytris glabris, sat fortiter punctato-striatis,

interspatiis fere planis ad apicem ut ad latera convexis,

dense transversim rugulosis.

Long. + lin.

Hab.—Champion Bay; collected by Mr. Duboulay.

Head clothed with adpressed white hairs; surface

finely but distantly punctured ; labrum and lower half of

antennee fulvous, outer half of the latter black; eyes

large, reniform ; thorax as broad at the base as the elytra;

sides obliquely converging and slightly rounded from

base to apex ; upper-surface clothed with adpressed white

hairs; disc remotely, sides rather more closely, impressed

with moderately deep punctures; basal lobe slightly

reflexed ; scutellum semi-ovate, rounded at the apex, its

surface shining, impunctate ; elytra about one-half longer

than broad, nearly parallel; surface rather densely

punctate-striate, interspaces nearly plane on the ante-

rior half of the imner disc, moderately convex towards

the apex of the latter, and also on the outer disc, their

whole surface closely covered with fine transverse rugosi-

ties; legs fulvous, stained with piceous; tarsi pitchy-

black.

Ditropidus rufocupreus.

Subquadratus, convexus, postice paullo attenuatus,

pallide rufo-piceus, supra rufo-cupreus, antennis extror-

sum nigris, thorace distincte punctato; elytris striato-

punctatis, interstitiis planis, ad latera pone medium

convexis.

Long. 14-12 lin.

Hab.—Western Australia, Champion Bay.

Head clothed with adpressed whitish hairs, surface dis-

tinctly punctured, impressed on the upper half of the face

with a longitudinal groove; jaws black; antenne equal

to the head and thorax in length, slender, five upper

jomts only shghtly dilated, four upper joints blackish-

piceous; thorax twice as broad at the base as long, sides

rounded and converging from base to apex; surface

impressed with numerous distinct but shallow punctures ;

Australian Phytophaga. 387

basal lobe distinctly notched, its surface on the same

plane as the disc of the thorax; scutellum regularly

ovate, its apex acute; elytra slightly but distinctly

broader at their base than the thorax, twice the length

of the latter; surface regularly punctate-striate, inter-

spaces plane, very minutely and distantly punctured,

those on the hinder half of the outer disc convex, sub-

costate ; on the upper half of the inner disc are a few very

faint irregular ruge ; pygidium finely rugose-punctate, |

clothed with adpressed white hairs.

Ditropidus Odewahnii.

Oblongus, cupreus, nitidus, antennis extrorsum nigris,

his basi, labro pedibusque piceo-fulvis; thorace subremote

punctato, lateribus substrigoso; elytris distincte punc-

tato-striatis, interspatiis impunctatis, fere planis, apicem

versus et ad latera leviter convexiusculis.

Long. $-$ lin.

Hab.—South Australia.

Head remotely punctured, sparingly clothed with ad-

pressed griseous hairs, face impressed with a longitudinal

groove ; eyes large, shghtly notched ; six lower joints of

antenne fulvous, the five outer black ; thorax as broad

at the base as the elytra, sides rounded and converging

from base to apex; upper surface remotely punctured,

the punctures oblong, rather more crowded on the sides ;

surface between the punctures smooth and impunctate

on the disc, obsoletely strigose on the sides; elytra

nearly parallel, scarcely narrowed posteriorly, regularly

punctate-striate, punctures large but not very deeply

impressed, oblong; interspaces smooth and shining, im-

punctate, faintly wrinkled when seen under a strong lens ;

on the disc nearly plane, on the inner disc near the apex,

and on the outer disc, shghtly convex.

Ditropidus tarsatus.

Subquadratus, postice angustatus, 9 magis oblongus,

sordide fulvus, subopacus, antennis extrorsum, thoracis

margine basali, scutello, tarsisque nigro-piceis; elytris

sulcato-striatis, striis fortiter punctatis; puncto humerali,

sutura postice, margine apicali, maculisque tribus ante

apicem transversim positis, pallide piceis ; abdomine fusco.

388 Mr. J. S. Baly-on

Long. 1-13 lin.

Hab.—Western Australia, Champion Bay.

Head closely covered with adpressed fulvous hairs ;

front impressed with a longitudinal groove; outer half

of antenne pitchy-black ; thorax as wide as, or slightly

wider at its base, than the elytra, sides regularly rounded

and converging from base to apex; disc closely punc-

tured, strigose-punctate on the sides; in the middle,

‘extending from the extreme apex of the basal lobe half-

‘way across the disc is a faint longitudinal ridge, on

either side of which, just in front of the basal margin,

is a broad but shallow and ill-defined transverse exca-

vation ; basal margin narrowly edged with black; elytra

subnitidous, scarcely equal in width to the base of the

thorax, narrowed from base to apex; disc below the

basal margin broadly but faintly depressed ; each elytron

with eleven rows of sulcate strie, the first short; each

stria impressed with a regular row of large round punc-

tures, more or less stained with fuscous ; interspaces

shightly raised, obsoletely convex on the inner disc,

subcostate near the outer margin, distinctly punctured,

here and there faintly wrinkled ; a spot on the humeral

callus, and three large ill-defined patches placed trans-

versely across the disc nearly half-way between its centre

and the apex, obscure fuscous; of these patches the

middle one is common and transverse, the two others

oblong, and placed one on either side on the outer disc,

and attached to the outer border of the elytron; the

hinder half of the suture, the apical border of the elytra,

and sometimes the hinder half of the lateral border, are

narrowly edged with fuscous ; knees stained with piceous,

tarsi pitchy-black.

Ditropidus fulvus.

Oblongus, fulvus, subnitidus, thorace sat crebre punc-

tato, substrigoso, lateribus rugoso-punctatis, margine

basali anguste nigro-marginato ; elytris punctato-striatis,

punctis magnis, rotundatis, leviter impressis ; interspatiis

obsolete convexiusculis, ad apicem magis elevatis, ad

latera subcostatis. .

Long. 1 lin.

Hab.—Western Australia.

Australian Phytophaga. 389

Head deeply punctured, glabrous; antennz fulvous,

the inner angles of the five upper joints alone being stained

with piceous; thorax as broad at its base as the elytra ;

sides obliquely converging and slightly rounded from

base to apex, surface coarsely punctured, substrigose,

rugose-punctate on the sides ; basal lobe slightly reflexed ;

basal margin narrowly edged with piceous; scutellum

pale, brownish-fulvous ; elytra broadly oblong, scarcely

narrowed posteriorly ; surface of each elytron with eleven

rows of large round shallow punctures, the first row short 5,

interspaces smooth, nearly flat on the inner disc, convex

towards the apex, more strongly raised and almost costate

near the outer margin.

This species strongly resembles Oryptocephalus minutus

and its allies, in habit and coloration.

Ditropidus dimidiatus.

Subquadratus, rufus, nitidus, antennis extrorsum, pedi-

bus intermedi, tarsisque anticis rufo-piceis, scutello,

elytris, metasterno, abdomine, pedibusque posticis nigris.

Kone: Ty lin.

Hab.—Northern Australia, Brisbane ?

Head closely punctured, rugose-punctate between the

eyes, the latter distant, reniform, front impressed with a

faint longitudinal groove; thorax as broad at its base as

the elytra, sides rounded and converging from base to

apex; upper surface distinctly and somewhat closely

punctured; elytra slightly longer than broad, slightly

narrowed posteriorly ; surface strongly punctate-striate,

interspaces flat, impunctate, three outer interspaces

thickened, subcostate.

Ditropidus biplagiatus.

Subquadrato-ovatus, postice paullo angustatus, niger,

nitidus, antennis extrorsum piceis, basi labroque rufo-tes-

taceis, thorace rufo, tenuiter nigro marginato; elytris

tenuiter punctato-striatis, utrinque plaga magna rufa,

discum fere amplectente, ornatis ; femoribus obscure rufo-

piceis aut nigris.

390 Mr. J. S. Baly on

Long. 14 lin.

Hab.—Moreton Bay; North-West Australia.

Head broad, flat, impressed with moderately large

but shallow punctures; clypeus and lower portion of

face slightly wrinkled; middle of face with a shallow

longitudinal groove ; four or five outer jomts of an-

tenn piceous; eyes distant, uniform; thorax nearly

as broad at the base as the elytra, sides obliquely

narrowed from base to apex, slightly rounded near the

apex; disc smooth, rather closely covered with shallow

punctures; elytra about a third longer than broad,

slightly narrowed posteriorly, each elytron with eleven

rows of moderately impressed oblong punctures, the first

short; interspaces distantly and minutely punctured,

plane on the anterior portion of the middle disc, faintly

raised on the front half of the inner disc, shghtly

convex on the hinder half, those on the outer disc near

the outer margin raised and convex for their whole

length: on each elytron is a large subtrigonate rufous

patch occupying the middle of the disc.

Ditropidus fasciatus.

Breviter oblongus, obscure veneo-niger, nitidus, albo-

sericeus, antennis basi fulvis, dorso piceis, articulis

quinque ultimis modice dilatatis, nigris ; thorace elytris-

que obscure cupreis, illo subfortiter punctato, albo-sericeo ;

his glabris, tenuiter punctato-striatis, interstitiis planis,

iis ad latera leviter convexis ; utrisque fascia lata obliqua,

fulva, a humero fere ad suturam extensa ornatis.

Long. 14-1? ln.

Hab.—Champion Bay.

Head somewhat closely punctured, vertex cupreous,

labrum and six basal joints of antennz obscure fulvous,

the latter stained above with piceous; thorax twice as

broad as long, sides rounded and converging from base

to apex, slightly sinuate just before the hinder angle,

the latter somewhat compressed, and produced slightly

backwards ; basal lobe feebly notched, obsoletely reflexed ;

surface on either side the basal lobe and extending to

the hinder angles distinctly depressed (this depression

causes the disc of the thorax to appear unusually convex) ;

Australian Phytophaga. 391

surface distinctly punctured, the puncturing rather dis-

tant on the disc, closer on the sides; scutellum obovate,

its apex obtuse; elytra not broader at their base than

the thorax, twice its length, finely but distinctly punc-

tate-striate; interspaces plane; on the outer margin

the two outer striz are sulcate, and their imterspaces

convex.

Genus LACHNABOTHRA, Saunders.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., vol. iv. p. 294.

The genus Lachnabothra was formed by Mr. W. W.

Saunders in 1847, on a single female example in the

cabinet of the Rev. F. W. Hope; this insect being

figured and described by him as Lachnabothra Hopet ;

the Suffrian, who subsequently (in 1859) monographed

Australian Cryptocephalide, sank Lachnabothra, and

placed Mr. Saunders’ species in the fourth section of

Erichson’s genus Cadmus ; both authors appear to have

known the ¢? only, but more than twenty years previously

a ¢ specimen belonging to the genus, was described

and figured by Dr. Klug (Ent. Mon. p. 159, tab. vi. fig.

9, 1824) under the name of Chlamys (?) braceata ; Klug,

who was unacquainted with the locality of his insect,

pointed out its affinity to the Cryptocephalide, thus

indicating its true position. For some years’ after the

publication of Mr. Saunders’ and Dr. Suffrian’s works,

the species were very rare in cabinets, but latterly,

owing to the exertions of Messrs. Waterhouse, Wilson,

and Odewahn, in South Australia, and of various other

collectors in the Western, and other parts of the con-

tinent, many specimens of both sexes of species be-

longing to the genus have become known to us. I

myself, possess no less than eight distinct forms (the

descriptions of which I have given below), im my own

collection.

The characters of the males, as distinguished from the

females, are as follows :—

Antenne much longer than the body; the ultimate joint

compressed, generally broader than the penultimate.

Thorax more or less gibbose, the gibbosity divided into

two distinct protuberances.

392 Mr. J. 8. Baly on

Hinder thighs thickened ; basal joint of anterior tarsus

usually dilated.

The other characters are as in the ? ; both sexes may

be known from the species of the genus Cadmus, by the

sculpture and dense metallic pubescence of the thorax ;

the sculpture of the elytra is also peculiar and constant

in all the species known to me.

Ihave not been able satisfactorily to identify Dr. Klug’s

insect with any of the species described below ; it is, how-

ever, very closely allied to L. Waterhovsei, and may pos-

sibly prove to be the same insect.

Lachnabothra Hoper, Saunders.

Trans. Ent. Soc. vol. iv. p. 295, pl. xv. fig. 5.

Cadmus Hopii, Suffrian, Lin. Ent., vol. xin. p. 89.

Subquadrato-oblonga, pallide rufo-picea, pilis pallide

aureis vestita, thorace dense aureo-sericeo ; elytris ru-

gosis, apice elevato-vittatis, disco interno tuberculis

oblongis nonnullis, disco externo cretis irregularibus,

inter se confluentibus et rete laxum formaniibus, in-

structis; pedibus antennisque obscure fulvis.

Mas. Thoracis disco bituberculato; antennarum articulo

ultimo dimidio apicali nigro, penultimo distincte latiori,

obcuneiformi, apice ipso angulato; tarsorum anticorum

articulo primo paullo dilatato, oblongo, basi attenuato,

apice truncato.

Long. 2-23 lin.

Hab.—South Australia, Melbourne, Adelaide.

Head clothed with adpressed golden hairs; face im-

pressed with a longitudinal groove, which extends from

the vertex to the apex of the clypeus; surface of face

deeply punctured ; clypeus transverse, triangular, sides

of the triangle shghtly convex, anterior border slightly

concave ; hinder surface punctured, clothed with adpressed

hairs, anterior portion smooth, impunctate, glabrous ; la-

brum often stained with piceous ; jaws piceous; thorax as

broad at its base as the thorax; sides diverging at the

base, thence obliquely converging to the apex in the ¢,

regularly rounded in the ¢, the apex itself quickly

Australian Phytophaga. 393

rounded ; upper surface convex, covered with numerous

shallow pits or excavations, anterior half of disc closely

punctured, subrugose, hinder half finely and subremotely

punctate; whole surface densely clothed with silky

golden hairs, which radiate from the excavated pits ;

on either side the centre of the disc, in the ¢, is a

broad obtuse protuberance; scutellum densely clothed

with adpressed golden hairs; elytra sparingly clothed

with golden hairs, rugose-punctate, hinder third with

seven or eight raised, broad, longitudinal ridges ; inner

disc with five oblong, longitudinally placed tubercles,

which are scattered over the anterior two-thirds of its

surface; outer disc coarsely rugose; on its surface are

several irregularly raised reticulations, which enclose

large, ill-defined, irregular spaces; these ridges are less

defined in the ¢ than in the other sex ; abdomen and

legs clothed with pale golden hairs.

Lachnabothra Brewert.

Subquadrato-oblonga, rufo-picea, clypeo nigro-piceo,

pube adpressa aurea vestita, thorace dense aureo-sericeo ;

elytris rugosis, disco interno tuberculis elongatis, 11s prope

apicem incrassatis, instructo, disco externi apice elevato-

vittato, antice irregulariter elevato-reticulato.

Mas. Thoracis disco leviter gibboso, indistincte bitu-

berculato, antennarum articulo ultimo (basi excepta)

nigro, penultimo latiori, a basi apicem versus dilatato,

apice angulato, acuto; femoribus posticis sat valde in-

crassatis; tarsorum anticorum articulo basali modice

dilatato.

Long. 2-24 lin.

Hab.—Albany, King George’s Sound’; Swan River.

Thorax as wide at the base as the elytra, sides rounded

and slightly diverging at the extreme base, thence

rounded and obliquely converging to the apex; disc

excavated here and there into shallow pits (about fourteen

in number); surface densely clothed with golden sericeous

hairs, which radiate from the centres of the shallow ex-

cavations; centre of the disc in the ¢ slightly gibbose,

the gibbosity transverse, elevated on either side into a

small illdefined tubercle ; elytra coarsely rugose-punctate,

394 Mr. J. S. Baly on

inner disc with a number of elongated and oblong tuber-

osities, several of these placed near the apex are greatly

thickened and enlarged ; basal half of outer disc covered

with irregular raised reticulations, the apical half elevate-

vittate ; running down the middie of each elytron, and

separating the inner from the outer disc, is a very irre-

gular raised line, which here and there sends off short

spurs on either side.

This species is closely allied to L. Hope, and is possi-

bly a local form of that species ; both sexes may be known

by the much stouter and broader apical tuberosities of

the inner disc; the ¢ also has the hinder thighs more

strongly thickened.

Lachnabothra integra, Suffr., MS.

Oblongo-quadrata, rufo-picea, pilis adpressis pallide

aureis vestita, antennis, tibiis tarsisque obscure fulvis,

femoribus posterioribus intus nigro-piceo maculatis ; tho-

race dense pallido aureo-sericeo ; elytris rugosis, disco

interno tuberculis oblongis, disco exteriori lineis elevatis

longitudinalibus, instructis.

Mas. Thorace dorso leviter gibboso, gibbo medio lon-

gitudinaliter sulcato; antennarum articulo ultimo (basi

excepta) nigro, penultimo vix latiori, compresso, a_ basi

apicem versus leviter ampliato, apice ipso angulato ;

femoribus posticis modice incrassatis, tarsorum pantico-

rum articulo basali leviter dilatato, oblongo, apice

truncato.

Long. 2-22 lin.

Hab.—South Australia, Adelaide, Gawlertown.

Thorax similar in form to that of L. Hopei, disc in the

6 slightly gibbose, the gibbosity divided by a distinct

longitudinal groove; pubescence clothing the surface

pale golden sericeous ; basal margin narrowly edged with

black ; elytra rugose-punctate, inner disc with seven or

eight oblong longitudinal protuberances, placed irregu-

larly on the surface from base to apex; at the base near

the scutellum is also a longitudinal ridge, which extends

backwards for rather more than a fourth of the elytron;

outer disc coarsely rugose; on its surface are two some-

what irregular longitudinal ridges, the first commencing

a short distance within, the second immediately without

Australian Phytophaga. 395

the humeral callus; the first of these terminates at the

commencement of the last fifth of the elytron, the second

is slightly longer, and approaches somewhat nearer to

the apex; in addition, on the hinder third, are four or

five coarse longitudinal ridges. .

The form of the thorax will separate the ¢ of the

insect before us from the same sex of any of the hitherto

known species.

Lachnabothra Wilsont, Suffr., MS.

Subquadrato-oblonga, nigro-picea, pilis argenteo-aureis

adpressis vestita, tibiis basi antennisque obscure fulvis ;

thorace dense argenteo-aureo sericeo; elytris profunde

rugoso-punctatis ; prope marginem lateralem irregulari-

ter verrucosis, castaneis, tuberculis plurimis oblongis

magnis, nigro-piceis, nitidis, instructis.

Mas. Thoracis disco utrinque tuberculo nitido in-

structo; antennarum articulo ultimo penultimo paullo

latiori, dimidio apicali nigro; femoribus modice incras-

satis ; tarsorum anticorum articulo basali paullo ampliato,

oblongo-ovato, apice truncato,

Long. 2-24 lin.

Hab.—South Australia, Gawlertown, Mr. Odewahn ;

Adelaide, Messrs. Wilson and Waterhouse.

Thorax as broad at its base as the elytra, sides rounded

at the base, thence converging to the apex in the 4d,

lateral margin slightly sinuate just before the middle; in

the opposite sex the sides are rounded and diverging

at the base, slightly flattened from thence to beyond the

middle, then rounded and converging to the apex; disc

irregularly pitted, but less distinctly so than in L. Hopet,

densely clothed with pale metallic sericeous hairs, which

radiate as usual from the centres of the various depres-

sions ; disc in the ¢ elevated on either side of its middle

into a distinct gibbosity, the apex of which is crowned

with a shining tubercle; immediately behind each gib-

bosity is an ill-defined transverse excavation, which runs

inwards nearly to the medial line of the thorax, leaving

the latter only in the form of a narrow longitudinal ridge ;

elytra castaneous, coarsely and deeply rugose-punctate,

irregularly verrucose near the lateral margin, covered

with large shining, oblong, nigro-piceous tuberosities ;

those on the anterior portion of the outer disc irregular.

396 . Mr. J.S8. Baly on

This is one of the best defined species of the genus,

it may be at once known by the peculiar sculpturing of

the elytra.

Lachnabothra Waterhouse.

Subquadrato-oblonga, pallide picea, aureo-sericea; an-

tennis tarsisque fulvis; thorace hic illic excavato, dense

aureo-sericeo; elytris nigro-piceis, rude rugoso-punctatis,

basi et apice elevato-vittatis, disco interno tuberculis

oblongis magnis instructo, disco externo laxe elevato-

reticulato ; vittis tuberculisque rufo-piceis.

Mas. Thoracis disco utrinque in gibbum validum

subconicum elevato; antennarum articulo ultimo apice

nigro, penultimo latiori, apice obtuse angulato ; femoribus

posticis modice incrassatis ; tarsorum anticorum articulo

basali non dilatato, secundo zequilato.

Long. 2 lin.

Hab.—South Australia, Adelaide.

Thorax as wide at the base as the elytra, sides rounded

and diverging at the extreme base, nearly straight and

parallel in the middle, thence rounded and converging

to the apex; surface excavated into a number of shallow

pits, densely clothed with adpressed golden hairs, which

radiate from the centres of the pits; in the ¢ (the only

sex known to me) the disc is strongly elevated on either

side into a large subconical protuberance ; elytra spar-

ingly clothed with adpressed hairs, very coarsely rugose-

punctate, the base with three short, but strongly raised

longitudinal ridges, which extend backwards rather more

than one-third the length of the elytron; they are placed,

one near the suture commencing with a thickened base,

at the apex of the scutellum, another half-way between

the suture and the humeral callus, and a third a short

distance within the latter; in the interspace between the

first and second ridge, is seen a small tubercle, and be-

tween the second and third is a slightly raised, ill-defined,

longitudinal line; on the hinder two-thirds of the inner

disc are placed seven or eight large oblong tuberosities ;

outer disc very irregularly and coarsely elevate-reticulate,

its hinder portion covered with raised longitudinal vitte ;

one of these, the second from the suture, is continued

upwards along the disc as far as the apex of the humeral

callus; hinder thighs moderately thickened.

Australian Phytophaga. 397

This species, of which I have seen three specimens (all

males), varies like most of the others, in coloration;

usually it is dark piceous, the raised markings on the

elytra being pale rufo-piceous, the legs and abdomen, and

the upper part of the head are also more or less rufous,

and stained with dark piceous; the antennz. (the apical

joints excepted) and tarsi are pale fulvous, the basal

joint of the latter being sometimes stained with fuscous.

L. Waterhousei may be known by the undilated basal

joint of the anterior tarsus, by the strongly raised

tuberosities of the thorax, and by the moderately dilated

hinder thighs; these characters taken together, will at

once separate it from its congeners.

Lachnabothra Saundersi.

Subquadrato-oblonga, rufo-picea, thorace basi elytris

distincte latiori, dense aureo-sericeo, elytris pube aureo

minus dense vestitis; rugosis, disco interiori tuberculis

oblongis nonnullis (circa 7)instructo, disco exteriori rude

rugoso, elevato-reticulato, ad apicem elevato-vittato.

Mas. Thoracis disco leviter bituberculato; antenna-

rum articulo apicali (basi excepta) nigro, penultimo

distincte latiori, apice oblique truncato ; femoribus valde

incrassatis; tarsorum anticorum articulo basali late

ampliato, semi-ovato, lateribus ineequalibus.

Long. 2} lin.

Hab.—Australia.

Thorax distinctly broader at the base than the elytra,

sides slightly diverging at the base, thence rounded and

converging to the apex, hinder angles armed with a

small obtuse tooth, lateral margin near the base irregu-

larly crenulate ; surface finely rugose-punctate ; on either

side the medial line in the ¢ is a large but slightly

elevated gibbosity, the apex of which is crowned by a

small shining tubercle; elytra rugose-punctate, whole

surface clothed with adpressed golden hairs; inner disc

with a number of large oblong tubercles, placed irregu-

larly from base to apex of the elytron; outer disc coarsely

rugose, the interspaces thickened and forming small

irregular reticulations and rugosities over the whole sur-

face; on the apical third are four or five ill-defined

(owing to the general rugosity of the surface) raised

longitudinal vittee. .

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT 111. (AUGUST.) EE

398 Mr. J. 8. Baly on

Lachnabothra distincta.

Subquadrata, oblonga, rufo-picea, supra nigro-picea,

aureo-sericea, antennis fulvis; thorace basi elytris paullo

latiori, dense aureo-sericeo; disco hic illic leviter exca-

vato; elytris rugosis, disco interiori tuberculis nonnullis,

disco exteriori vittis elevatis, 1is ante medium irregulariter

flexuosis, instructis.

Mas. 'Thoracis disco utrinque in gibbum validum ele-

vato ; antennarum articulo ultimo, a basi apicem versus

paullo dilatato, penultimo paullo latiori, apice rotun-

dato, dimidio apicali nigro; femoribus posticis sat valde

incrassatis ; tarsorum anticorum articulo basali sat late

dilatato, semi-ovato, lateribus inzequalibus.

Long. 23 lin.

Hab.—North-West Australia.

Thorax very slightly broader at the base than the

elytra; sides rounded at the base, thence obliquely rounded

and converging to the apex; hinder half of lateral border

finely crenulate ; surface rugose-punctate, excavated here

and there into shallow pits; clothed with adpressed golden

hairs, which radiate from the centres of the shallow ex-

cavations; in the 3 (the only sex known to me) the

middle of the disc is raised on either side into a strong

subconical protuberance, divided from its fellow in

the medial line, by a longitudinal depression; elytra

rugose, also clothed with adpressed golden hairs; inner

disc with six or seven oblong tubercles, placed irregularly

from base to apex; outer disc coarsely rugose, subverru-

cose near the outer border ; commencing a short distance

within the humeral callus, is an elevated ridge, which,

irregularly flexuous about the middle of its course, runs

backwards for four-fifths the length of the elytron; im-

mediately external to the humeral callus, and connected

at its base to the callus itself, 1s a second, much shorter

than the first; on the hinder fifth of the outer disc, are

placed five or six round longitudinal vittee.

This male insect may easily be separated from the same

sex of L. Saundersi (the ? of which is also unknown to

me) by its more strongly raised thorax, as well as by the

less dilated basal joint of the anterior tarsus.

Australian Phytophaga. 399

Lachnabothra Duboulat.

Subquadrato-oblonga, picea, aut rufo-picea, pube pal-

lide argenteo-aureis vestita; antennis, tibiis tarsisque

fulvis ; thorace dense pallide aureo-sericeo ; elytris LUgOSIS ;

pilis argenteo-aureis vestitis, tuberculis elongatis et ob-

longis disco interno positis, vittaque elevata irregulari

hic illic ramulum emittente, a callo humerale fere ad

apicem extensa instructis, disco exteriori apice elevato-

vittato, antice rude et irregulariter elevato-reticulato.

Mas. Thoracis disco utrinque leviter gibboso, gibbis

subconicis; antennarum articulo ultimo non dilatato,

penultimo zquilato; femoribus posticis sat valde incras-

satis; tarsorum anticorum articulo basali sat dilatato,

semi-ovato.

Long. 24-23 lin.

Hab.—Western Australia; collected by Mr. Duboulay.

Thorax as wide at the base as the thorax, sides rounded

and slightly-diverging at the base, thence obliquely con-

verging and slightly rounded to the apex in the d, more

regularly rounded in the other sex; surface closely

rugose, densely clothed with pale metallic adpressed

hairs; on either side the disc in the ¢ is a large, broad,

but slightly raised obtuse protuberance ; elytra coarsely

rugose, rather densely clothed, when freshly disclosed,

with adpressed hairs; inner disc with a number of

strongly raised longitudinal tuberosities, compressed and

linear at the base, thicker and oblong towards the apex ;

on the middle portion of the surface of each elytron,

separating the inner from the outer disc, is an irregular

raised longitudinal line ; outer disc very coarsely elevate-

reticulate in front, elevate-vittate on its hinder portion

towards the apex; these vittz and protuberances are

usually stained with black, but are more rarely conco-

lorous with the disc of the elytron ; thighs stained with

black, strongly dilated.

The species before us, collected in some abundance

by Mr. Duboulay, most closely resembles (especially

when slightly rubbed) L. Wilsoni; both sexes may be

separated from that species by the different sculpture of

the elytra; the ¢ may be also known by the slender

apical joint of the antenne, as well as by the much less

strongly elevated gibbosities of the thorax.

EE2

400 Mr. J. 8S. Baly on Phytophaga.

Fam. CHRYSOMELIDA.

Genus STRUMATOPHYMA, 0. g.

Corpus postice attenuatum, apterum ; caput exsertum,

breve; antenne filiformes, corpore dimidio longiores;

oculis prominulis, elongatis ; palpis maxillaribus articulo

ultimo penultimo equilato, apice truncato ; thorax trans-

versus dorso preesertim ad latera, excavatus; elytra

oblonga, postice attenuata, sutura intime convexa, dorso

tuberculata, tuberculis seriatim dispositis; pedes sim-

plices; wnguiculis inermibus, basi leviter incrassatis ;

acetabula antica incompleta.

Type Chalcolampra verrucosa, Clark.

Chaleolampra undulatipennis, Clark, from Western

Australia, also belongs to this genus.

Strumatophyma is separated from Chalcolampra by the

apterous body, soldered elytra, and simple claws.

Genus SPHZROLINA, n. g.

Corpus rotundato-ovatum, semiglobosum; caput ex-

sertum, breve; antennis brevibus, capite cum thorace

vix eequalibus, articulis quinque ultimis compressis,

distincte dilatatis, clavam elongatam formantibus ; oculis

elongatis, subprominulis; palpis maxillaribus articulo

ultimo penultimo vix sequilato, breviter ovato, apice

truncato ; thoraw transversus; elytra thorace multo latiora

apice late rotundata, tumida inordinatim punctata ; pedes

simplices; unguiculis muticis; acetabula antica incom-

pleta.

Type Lina Rajah, Guérin; India.

The short antenne distinguish the present genus from

Chrysomela; it also differs in the form of the thorax:

from Lina it may be known by the shorter form, and by

the swollen elytra. Lina Templetoni, Baly, must also be

placed in this genus.

( 401 )

XIV. Descriptions of five new species, and a new genus,

of Diurnal Lepidoptera, from Shanghai. By A.

G. Burizr, F.L.S., &c.

{Read 5th June, 1871.]

THE species here described were recently sent home by

Mr. W.B.Pryer. They are very interesting; one of them

being a representative of an exclusively New World group

of butterflies, and another very similar to a common British

Argynnis ; m the same Collection is a curious little Terias,

which I believe to be the 7’. mandarinus of De L’Orza;

it may, however be new, since I have not recently had

an opportunity of consulting his description.

Fam. NYMPHALIDA,

Sub.-fam. SATY RIN A, Bates.

PALEHONYMPHA, gen. n.

Affinissimum Huptychie (Sect. Neonympha) differt alis

dense pilosis; anticis striga lata, opaca, masculina, obli-

qua; angulo antico cellule discoidalis haud porrecto;

palpis articulo ultimo longiore.

Nearly allied to Huptychia, which it much resembles

in markings, but with the oblique male streak (not pre-

sent in any known Huptychia, but represented in L. vesta

by a scalloped embossed line) ; the anterior angle of the

discoidal cell obliquely cut off, and therefore not project-

ing as in Huptychia ; the palpi with the last joint longer,

the wings clothed above with long hairs; it differs from

Paramecera (Mexico), with which it agrees in the last-

mentioned character, and in the oblique male streak, in

the different form of the front-wing cell, the shape and

marking of the wings, and the length of the palpi.

Typical species PALZONYMPHA OPALINA.

Paleonympha opalina, sp. n.

Ale supra fusce, anticee ocello uno apicali albo-pupil-

lato lineisque duabus marginalibus, nigris; postica

ocellis quatuor nigris ; primo apicali indistincto, secundo

parvo inconspicuo, tertio magno, distincto, bipupillato,

402 Mr. A. G. Butler on

quarto anali parvo, inconspicuo; ale subtus cineree, striis

duabus mediis equidistantibus, nebula maculari ocellos

ferente lineisque duabus submarginalibus, olivaceis ;

linea marginali tenuissima, nigra; antice ocellis tribus

primo apicali nigro, argenteo-bipupillato, flavo late cincto,

aliis ovalibus geminatis argenteis ; postice: stria externa

apud costam profunde sinuata ; ocellis quinque, primo,

quarto et quinto nigris argenteo-pupillatis flavo-cinctis,

aliis ovalibus argenteis geminatis olivaceo-cinctis.

Exp. alar. une. 2, lin. 2.

I have called it opalina, because of the silvery-opaline

spots on the under-surface; these occur on a great many

of the species Huptychia: the species is most like H.

Antonoé of Cramer, but is much smaller.

Genus Letuz, Hubner.

2 Lethe satyrina, sp. n.

Ale ovali-triangulares, supra olivaceo-fusce ; margine

albido, a stria submarginali fusca intersecto ; cilis fuscis ;

antic apice late dilutiore, ocellis duobus mconspicuis

fuscis albo-pupillatis; posticee ocellis quinque, secundo

indistincto maximo, primo, quarto et quinto magnis,

omnibus (secundo excepto) nigris flavo-albido cinctis

albo-pupillatis. Ale subtus fere velut supra; anticee

stria postcellulari obliqua albida; ocellis supernis, nigris

distinctis ; posticee ocellis sex, primo et quinto maximis,

ultimo geminato, omnibus nigris albo-pupillatis flavo-

cinctis, fusco circumcinctis, lilacmo zonatis ; stris duabus

mediis irregularibus lilacino-fuscosis.

Exp. alar. unc. 2, lin. 6.

Most nearly allied to LZ. Verma, and resembling the

species of Satyrus, in the shape of the wings and distribu-

tion of the ocelli.

Genus Yrutuima, Hiibner.

Yphthima Zodia, sp. nu.

Ale supra fusce, anticze ocello mediocri nigro bipu-

pillato, flavo-cincto; posticee ocellis tribus subanalibus,

tertio ad angulum ani minimo, nigris albo-pupillatis,

flavo-cinctis ; alee subtus cinereo-albide, fusco reticulate ;

Diurnal Lepidoptera. 403

antice striis duabus mediis male conspicuis, externa cum

stria submarginali simili continua, fuscis ; ocello superno

majori; posticee fascia lata olivacea, undulata; ocellis sex

minutis, duobus subapicalibus, duobus discali-analibus,

duobus analibus contiguis, nigris, albo-pupillatis, flavo-

cinctis.

Exp. alar. unc. 1, lin. 7.

Alhed to Y. Lisandra and Y. Argus, but differing

from all the known species, in the broad central fuscous

band on the under-surface of the hind-wings.

Sub-fam. NYMPHALINAK.

Genus Neptis.

Neptis Pryeri, sp. n.

Ale supra nigra, ciliis albis; antics vitta discoidali

quinque maculari, serie macularum decem bisinuata dis-

cali et altera, a fascia media nigra intersecta, sex maculari,

submarginali, apicem haud attingente, albis; posticze

fascia media a venis interrupta; stria sex-maculari discali

transversa, albis ; corpus cinereum ; alee subtus albican-

tibus ; anticze maculis costali-discalibus, plagisque disco-

cellulari, apicali et marginali, brunneis; postice basi

nigro-maculata ; plaga costali cellulum partim cingente,

fascia media ad costam attingente, venis discalibus et

area marginali (lunulos subseptem gerente) brunneis ;

corpus albidum.

Exp. alar. unc. 2, lin. 5.

Not nearly allied to any species that I have seen.

Genus Araynnis, Fabricius.

_Argynnis vorax, sp. 0.

Affinis A. Adippe, differt alis anticis costa multo lon-

giore, margine externo magis arcuato, posticis margine

interno longiore, omnibus supra maculis submarginalibus

fulvis angustioribus; subtus characteribus discoideis

minus conspicuis; anticee maculis discalibus majoribus ;

posticee pallidiores, area basali viridiore ; maculis argenteis

vix nigro marginatis ; serie ocellorum minus angulata;

lunulis submarginalibus viridibus.

Exp. alar. unc. 3, lin. 2.

Nearly allied to A. Adippe, but more like A. Paphia

in form.

( 405 )

XV. On some black species of Cantharis with red heads

and filiform antenne. By Cuas. O. WATERHOUSE.

[Read 3rd July, 1871.)

Havine lately required a name for a species of black

Cantharis, belonging to the group with the head red,

and with filiform antenne, I have gathered together all

the specimens at my disposal, with a view of identifying

them. I find among them five species, and as only one

of these has been at all properly described, I have ven-

tured to write out descriptions of them all. I have yet

one or two which cannot well be placed with these five,

but as the species are so close, | thought it better not to

describe from single specimens.

Cantharis nepalensis, Hope.

Lytta Nepalensis, Hope, Gray’s Zool. Miscel. p. 32.

Ater; capite rufo, antennis filiformibus, tibiis anticis

non hirsutis ; elytris apices versus latioribus.

Long. 63-114 lin.

Closely allied to C. ruficeps of Illiger, but is to be dis-

tinguished from it by the deeper red colouring, and

strong punctuation of the head, and by the elytra being

distinctly broader towards the apex.

The head is dull dark red, not very thickly, but some-

what strongly, punctured ; the clypeus is almost entirely

black, as are also the labrum and other parts of the

mouth. The antenne are filiform, very slightly pubes-

cent; the first joint short, the second very short, the

third the longest, the fourth to seventh equal, the eighth to

tenth rather shorter, the eleventh a little longer than the

seventh. The thorax is subquadrate (contracted in front) ,

thickly and distinctly punctured, less closely and rather

more strongly on the disc; the fore-part is slightly im-

pressed on each side, there is a faint longitudinal line on

the disc, and a deep fovea in the centre of the posterior

margin. The elytra somewhat broader towards the apex,

where they diverge, each rounded at the apex, the whole

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT II. (AUGUST.) FF

406 Mr. Chas. O. Waterhouse on

surface distinctly punctured. The underside of the insect

is entirely black, clothed with long black pubescence ;

legs simple; the anterior tibiz not dilated, nor clothed

with long hair.

Hab.—Nepal (Hardwicke). Brit. Mus.

C. hirtipes, sp. n.

Very closely allied to OC. nepalensis, but larger and

more cylindrical. The antenne are similar. The head

is dull, dark red, with long black hairs at the back, very

thickly and strongly punctured, with the exception of an

ovate spot at the base of each antenne, which is smooth,

impressed in the middle, and only sparingly punctured.

Thorax very thickly and strongly punctured, rounded in

front, clothed at the sides with long black hairs. Hlytra

elongate, distinctly punctured, not broader towards the

apex, where they diverge, and somewhat acuminate, the

extreme apex of each rounded. Underside entirely black,

with moderately long pubescence; the legs simple, the

four posterior tibie thickly clothed with somewhat long

black pubescence.

Long. 124-13} lin.

Hab.—Allahabad (Bowring). Brit. Mus.

C. tibialis, sp. nu.

Ater ; capite rufo-testaceo ; antennis filiformibus ; tibtis

anticis apicem versus latioribus | extus dense hirsutis (fo) ];

elytrorum sutura marginibusque tenuissime albo-pubescen-

tibus.

Long. 7-113 lin.

This species most closely resembles C. rujficeps of Illiger,

but is distinguished from it by the narrow margin of

white pubescence to the elytra, and by the somewhat

broad and hairy anterior tibiz in the male.

3. The head is reddish-yellow, and (with the excep-

tion of a smooth raised spot at the base of each antenna

(perhaps only a male character) , somewhat sparingly and

not very strongly punctured ; the anterior margin of the

clypeus is fuscous, as are also the labrum and other parts

of the mouth. The antenne are filiform, the third to

some black species of Cantharis. 407

sixth joints each notched for the reception of the follow-

ing joints: the basal two joints with longish black pubes-

cence, the second joint is a little shorter than the first,

and more slender; the third is about equal to the fourth

and fifth joints together; the fourth, fifth, and sixth

joints are short, of nearly equal length; the seventh to

the eleventh gradually increasing. The thorax is sub-

quadrate (abruptly contracted in front), thickly, evenly,

distinctly, but not very strongly, punctured; the fore-

part is slightly impressed on each side, and there is a

large deep fovea in the centre of the posterior margin.

The elytra are scarcely broader at the apex than at the

base, each elytron rounded at the apex, where they

diverge; the apex and lateral margins fringed with

white pubescence, the suture also very slightly so.

The mesothoracic epimera, the sides of the metathorax,

and the margins of the abdominal segments, are also

more or less clothed with whitish pubescence. The an-

terior tibiz are thickly set on the outside with long

black hair, the innerside of the anterior femora and

tibiz are clothed with yellowish pubescence.

Q. Antenne with the third to sixth joints less

strongly notched; the anterior tibiz destitute of long

black hair ; the forehead without any well-defined smooth

spot at the base of the antenne.

Hab.—China. Brit. Mus.

C. assamensis, sp. n.

It is with some hesitation that I venture to give the

insect which I have received with the above manuscript

name, the place of a species. It differs, however, from

C. tibialis in having the head distinctly more thickly

punctured, and the mesothoracic epimera are black (¢).

Long. 11} lin.

Hab.—‘ Assam.” Brit. Mus.

Two specimens ( ? ) from the Island Formosa, from Mr.

Bowring’s collection, most closely resemble the above,

but appear to have the elytra relatively longer ; the head

more arched behind, somewhat closely punctured in

front, but sparingly on the crown. The antenna are as

in the 9 of O. tibialis. The underside is almost entirely

black. The legs are simple, the anterior tibie not

hirsute.

RF2

408 Mr. Chas. O. Waterhouse on Cantharis.

C. ruficeps, Iliger.

Q. Lytta ruficeps, Il. (Wiedmann, Archiv. I. pt. 3,

p. 140, 1800).

$. Lytta plumicornis, Castelnau? (Hist. Nat. des In-

sectes, II. p. 274, 1840).

“ Atra unicolor, capite solo toto rufo, antennis totis nigris,

elytris obtuse acuminatis.”

?. Totally black, except the head which is reddish-

yellow ; the clypeus is yellowish, with a transverse black

band, the labrum has a notch in the front margin which

is yellowish, the other parts of the mouth are more or

less fuscous. The head is polished, sparingly but dis-

tinctly punctured. The thorax is subquadrate, slightly

broader in front than behind, abruptly contracted and

rounded in front, the fore-part is slightly impressed on

each side, the whole surface is thickly and distinctly

punctured, the disc has a lightly impressed longitudinal

line, which runs into a deep fovea at the posterior mar-

gin. The elytra are parallel, not narrower at the base

than at the apex, where they diverge, and are each

rounded. The antenne are four-fifths the length of the

elytra, filiform, the second joint two-thirds the length of

the first, the third a little longer than the first, the

fourth two-thirds the length of the third; the remaining

joints gradually increasing in length, and tapering. Legs

simple. Tarsi beneath, spongy, fuscous. The meta-

sternum and abdomen clothed with short grey-black

pubescence.

The ¢ israther more slender than the ?; the antennz

are longer (very nearly as long as the elytra) , the second

to eighth joits furnished with long hair on the lower (or

inner) side; the anterior tibie are furnished with long

black hairs; the innerside of the femora and tibiw clothed

with golden pubescence.

Long. 64-104 lin.

Hab.—Java, Borneo, Sumatra. Brit. Mus.

Good specimens of this insect appear in some lights to

have a reddish-brown pubescence, but a slight alteration

of the position makes it appear greyish.

The male agrees with Castelnau’s description of Lytta

plumicornis from China, and in the national collection

there is a specimen labelled ‘ North China’ which I can-

not satisfactorily separate from the Javanese specimens.

( 409 )

XVI. Apercu statistique sur les Névropteres Odonates.

Par le Baron E. pe Serys-Lonacuamps, Mem.

Hon. Soc. Ent. Lond.

[Lu 8me Juillet, 1871.)

Av moment oii je viens de publier une nouvelle partie du

Synopsis des Odonates, celui de la sous-famille des Cor-

dulines, je crois qu’il y a un certain intérét 4 jeter un

coup d’ceil statistique sur les genres et les espéces connus

jusquw’ici.

Pour arriver au chiffre total j’ai récapitulé :—

1,—les espéces décrites dans mes différents synopsis

et leurs suppléments.

2,—les espéces a ajouter aux mémes groupes: les unes

sont décrites dans différentes publications; les autres

sont inédites, mais je posséde leur signalement.

3,—les espéces des groupes que je n’ai pas encore

publiés. Ce sont les sous-familles des Libellulines et

des Aischnines, et parmi les Agrionines les deux grands

genres Agrion, F., et Telebasis, De Selys.

Pour ces groupes dont je n’ai pas terminé l’etude, on

comprend que les chiffres résultant du classement actuel

de ma collection ne sont pas tout a fait absolus. C’est

pour ce motif que je ne détaille les sous-genres des deux

grands genres Agrion et Telebasis.

La partie embarrassante est celle de la sous-famille

des Libellulines. En 1868 M. F. Brauer de Vienne a

publié son ‘ Verzeichniss der bis jetzt bekannten Neurop-

teren im Sinne Linné’s’, suivi de son ‘ Zweiter Abschnitt’,

dans lequel les genres de Libellulines, au nombre de 40

(ou 41 avec Zygonyx) sont caractérisés, et les noms des

espéces qui y appartiennent cités au nombre de 361.

Pour compléter mon Apercu, en ce qui concerne les

Libellulines, le mieux m’a semblé étre de ne rien changer

a Vordre adopté par M. Brauer, qui a rendu un grand

service a la science en publiant ce travail. Je prends sa

classification et ses chiffres tels qu’il les donne, en faisant

observer bien entendu, que je me reserve d’examiner

plus tard sa classification et ses groupes. J’ajoute que le

nombre des espéces qu'il cite est de 361, tandis que je crois

en connaitre environ 100 de plus, parmi lesquelles le

genre Neophlebia que j’ai décrit et figuré dans le voyage

de M. Pollen.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PART III. (AUGUST.)

410

Et nous sommes

Baron EH. de Selys-Longchamps sur

Dans le résumé par sous-genres, que je donne plus bas,

J arrive aux résultats suivants.

LIBELLULINES

CorpuLines . 83

GOMPHINES . 172

AMSCHNINES . 108

CaLopreryGcines 160

AGRIONINES . 3793

1857

461 espéces, en 41 sous-genres.

3) 11 PP)

3) 39 3)

3) 9 3)

3) 31 3)

190

évidemment bien éloignés de con-

naitre tous les Odonates, excepté pour les espéces

d’Hurope, qui sont au nombre de 100, et qui ne me

semblent guére susceptibles de recevoir une augmenta-

tion importante.

espéces.

Dans les Synopsis et ailleurs j’ai décrit environ 600

Il y en a donc encore plus de 700 que je n’ai

pas étudiées en détail, mais parmi elles se trouvent beau-

coup d’espéces dont de bonnes descriptions ont été

publiges par MM. Rambur, Ubhler, et Brauer, et par mes

honorables collégues et amis MM. Hagen et Mclachlan.

Famille I. LIBELLULIDA.

Sous-fam. I. Lipen.uina.

Genres et sous-genres. Espéces. | Genres et sous-genres. Espéces.

1. Zyxomma, Ramb..............0 1 | 24. Nannothemis, Brauer..........- 6

2. Tholymis, Hag.........c.sce0sees 3 | 25. Tetrathemis, Brauer..........++ 1

By JEG RH Gh TEI ieccodoaccocnenob0e 2 | 26. Uracis, Ramb., ..s.v.ncasce-ssane 8

Up SURO eI NeIGK 3. eogoondoodepooGn007 30 | 27. Lyriothemis, Brauer...........- 1

5. Rhyothemis, Hag..........s0ee08 19 | 28. Agrionoptera, Brauer.........+- 4

6. Diastatops, Ramb. ............- 4 | 29. Orthemis, Hag. ..........eceese 8

7. Palpoplewra, Ramb. ..........5+ 11 | 30. Libellula, L., Brauer.......... 27

8. Neurothemis, Brauer. 3. Libetla, Bratier......-.--.0++-0+ 31

(Eolyneurarh)pccccessencee ek 10 | 32. Onychothemis, Brauevr......... 1

9. Celithemis, Hag. ...........0000 1 | 33. Diplacina, Brauer...........++++ 2

10.' Pertthemis, Hag, ........0.03.03 6 | 34. Dythemis, Hag............csse00s 32

11. Leucorhinia, Brittg............. 12 | 385. Macrothemis, Hag. ........+.++- 4

UG ID potholes, (Chae 0 cGeanooncbocossce 52 | 36. Trithemis, Brauer...........0++. 19

13. Mesothemis, Hag.........00.0000- 9 | 37. Brachythemis, Brauevr.......... 1

14. Pachydiplawx, Brauer........... 1 | 88. Crocothemis, Brauer............ 4

15. Erythrediplaxz, Brauer....... -10 | 39. Macrodiplaw, Brauer...........- 2

16. Erythemis, Hag. ...........0005- 11 | 40. Urothemis, Brauer............++. 3

17. Lepthemis, Hag. .......s.0..000s ll | 41. Zygonya, De Selys.........20000. 2

18. Acisoma, Ramb. .........:...... 2 =>

19. Microthemis, Brauer............ 1 Selon M. Brauer ... 361

20. Brachydiplawx, Brauev.......... 4 En plus selon moi... ... 100

21. Nannodiplax, Brauey........... 2 ==

22. Nannophya, Ramb. ............ 2 461

23. Nannodythemis, Brauer....... 1 —

Des ie

les Névropteres Odonates.

Sous-fam. 2. CorpvLtna.

411

GENRES. SOUS-GENRES.

Légion 1. Cordulia.

1. Hemicordulia, De Selys...... 8

2% Cordulia, Leach............6+9: 16

Cordulia, Leach............+.- 3. Epitheca, Charp., De Selys 21

4. Oxygastra, De Selys........... 2

5. Gomphomacromia, Brauer... 4

Cordulephya, De Selys ......+. 6. Cordulephya, De Selys....... 1

Légion 2. Macromia.

Idionyx, De Selys....ce.scsseseeees 7. Idionya, De Selys.......2.+0+4 if

4ischnosoma (Bates), De Selys 8. Ai’schnosoma(Bates),De Selys3

9. Epophthalmia, Burm., Bra. 7

SE TUE BED Na acoere {10 Macromia, Ramb.........+++ 14

Synthemis, De Selys ......+++++ 1l. Synthemis, De Selys ........- 6

Famille II. AASCHNIDA.

Sous-fam. I. GompnHina.

Légion 1. Gomphus.

1. Onychogomphus, De Selys...19

2. Ceratogomphus, De Selys.... 1

3. Erpetogomphus, De Selys.... 8

4. Ophiogomphus, De Selys..... 4

5. Heterogomphus, De Selys.... 2

6. Epigomphus, Hag...........+++ 2

7. Microgomphus, De Selys..... 1

8. Macrogomphus, De Selys.... 4

Gomphars; Lenokns iss. e003. 9. Cyclogomphus, De Selys...... 3

10. Phyllogomphus, De Selys.... 1

11. Platygomphus, De Selys..... 1

12. Gomphus, Leach, De Selys..40

13. Austrogomphus, De Selys.... 3

14. Hemigomphus, De Selys..... 3

15. Neogomphus, De Selys........ 3

Us. Agriogomphus, De Selys..... 1

Légion 2. Lindenia.

Progomphus, De Selys .......... 17. Progomphus, De Selys........ 7

18. Gomphoides, De Selys........ 7

Gomphoides, De Selys........ 9 19. Cyelophylla, De Selys........ 9

20. Aphylla, De Selys..........+0. 6

§ 21. Diaphlebia, De Selys......... 2

Zonophora, De Selys.......:.. d 22. Zonophora, De Solysie..2. 2.88 3

- § 23. Hagenius, De Selys............ 2

Hagenius, De Selys........... U24. Sieboldius, De Selys.......... 1

412

GENRES.

5. Diastatomma, Burm., De S....

7. Lindenia, De Haan, De S....

Baron H. de Selys-Longchamps sur

SOUS-GENRES.

Diastatomma, B., De Selys 2

Gomphidia, De Selys......... 1

Tetumis, Wammbssc-ceus-se-e es a

Cacus, De ial hyfsboonscbansaq0o5~

Lindenia, De aan, De Selys i

Légion 8. Chlorogomphus.

8. Chlorogomphus, De Selys ....

30.

Chlorogomphus, De Selys...

Légion 4. Cordulegaster.

9. Cordulegaster, Leach.........

10. Petalia, Hag. ...0..0sccscereeeee

Thecaphora, Ch., De Selys 1

Cordulegaster, Leach..........12

PCC, TAGE eseessecueroesceses i

Phyllopetalia, De Selys...... 2

Hypopetalia, McLach....... 1

Légion 5. Petalura.

HE Betalara, Weachs..cccrcseces>

DS IPNONES oRctisorasonveteecsscascra

09.

Sous-fam. 2. AUscHNINA.

Meer 2 MOOACHissasiecnccascacesee

ASCH Micmasitesccceacecessres 9 )

3. Stawrophlebia, Brauer........

4. Gynacantha, Ramb......... «

Petalura, Leach.........0..000. 1

Uropetala, De Selys.........+. il

Tachopteryx, Uhler..........++ 1

PEN eS; WAM ss ccadedeceeeeeeas 1

172

Anda, Weach..saccdscersaserese 17

Cyrtosoma, Charp., De Selys 3

Gompheschna, De Selys...... 1

Brachytron, Evans............ 1

Aischna, F., De Selys.........50

Staurophlebia, Brauer........ 4

Neureschna, De Selys........ 5

Amphieschnu. De Selys...... 5

Gynacantha, Ramb........... 22

108

Pour le moment je m’abstiens de réunir les sous-genres

par catégories de grands genres d’une maniére definitive ;

les quatre coupes que je propose sont provisoires.

Je réserve le nom de Cyrtosoma pour les espéces

d’Anaz du groupe de Vephippigerus, Burm. (mediterra-

neus, De Selys).

les Névropteres Odonates.

413

Le sous-genre Gompheschna est crée pour recevoir la

Gynacantha quadrifida de Rambur, dont les caractéres

sont mentionnés dans sa description de l’espéce.

Le sous-genre Amphiceschna comprend, entre autres,

YAschna ampla, Ramb., ? dA?’schna Irene, Fonscolombe,

et la Gynacantha ide, Brauer.

cantha par Vespace basilaire réticulée, et de Newrceschna

parce que la nervure sous-costale s’arréte au nodus.

10.

LE.

12.

Il se distingue de Gyna-

Famille III. AGRIONIDA.

Sous-fam. 1. CaLopTERYGINA.

Légion 1. Calopterya.

GENRES. SOUS-GENRES,

TE Sulphis, la Oescsecceereese sea 2

Calopteryx, Leach ..........2 2. Calopteryx, Leach ............ 13

3. Matrona, De Selys............ 1

4, Cleis, De Selys .........ss00e 1

5. Sapho, De Selys ...c......00. 4

Echo, De Selys.........s0s.+00- 6. Mnais, De Selys..............5 5

7. Echo, De Selys ............... 1

8. Psolodesmus, McLach. ...... 1

9. Phaon, De Selys............00 1

Phaon, De Selys.....+.++-+++ 10. Neurobasis, De Selys......... 3

GERAIS, USIEX®S cncacoonocoosonposooe ll. Vestalis, De Selys ............ 4

F RTOS ELA O Neseomsncnenece camctses 9

Hetworino, Hag. ......+10-.-04. { 13. Hetwrina, Hag.........cee0 30

Légion 2. Euphea.

Caliphwa, Hag. .......1...0.0000 14. Caliphea, Hag. ............... 1

15. Anisoplewra, De Selys........ 1

16. Epallage, Charp. ...........+.. 2

Euphea, De Belys............. 17. Euphea, De Selys ............ 16

18. Dysphea, De Selys............ 3

rae 19. Dicterias, De Selys........... 1

Dictertas, De Belys ........... { 30. Heliocharis, De Selys........ 3

Anisonewra, De Selys .......... 21. Anisonewra, De Selys......... 1

Légion 3. Amphipteryz.

22. Tetranewra, De Selys.......+. 1

Amphipteryw, De Selys...... 23. Amphipterya, De Selys...... 1

24. Diphlebia, De S. (Dineura,

(De Selys, olim) ......+.e00 1

Légion 4. Libellago.

. 25. Rhinocypha, Ramb...........- 21

Libellago, De Selys. .......... 136. Libellago, De Selys. ......... 5

Micromerus, Ramb...........000 27. Micromerus, Ramb. ......... 9

414

13.

119;

Baron E. de Selys-Longchamps sur

Légion 5. Thore.

GENRES. SOUS-GENRES.

28. Cora, De Selys ..........2.0.s6 5

29. HEuthore, De Selys ........000+ 4

Thore, HAag....-..-cesescoratere 80: Thores Hage. ocevesess oes cee 8

31. Chalcopteryx, De Selys...... 2

160

Sous-fam. 2. AGRIONINA.

Légion 1. Pseudostigma.

1. Megaloprepus, Ramb......... 1

Megaloprepus, Ramb. ........ { 2. Microstigma, Ramb. ......... 3

; 3. Pseudostigma, De Selys...... 2

Mecistogaster, Ramb.......... ; 4. Mecistogaster, Ramb.......... 7

Légion 2. Lestes.

5. Megalestes, De Selys......... 1

6. Hypolestes, De Selys ......... 1

7. Archilestes, De Selys......... 2

Lestes, each) .... 66.0506 as+0- 8. Melanolestes, De Selys...... 1

Of Destessmeach sececsesteeeere 53

10. Sympycna, Charp..........+6- 1

11. Platylestes, De Selys...... apg i

Légion 3. Podagrion.

Paraphlebia, De Selys. ......... 12. Paraphlebia, De Selys....... 1

Philogenia, De Selys ............ 13. Philogenia, De Selys......... 5

Podagrion, De Selys .........+. 14. Podagrion, De Selys ......... 6

Heteragrion, De Selys .......... 15. Heteragrion, De Selys ...... 14

Perilestes, De Selys ...........- 16. Perilestes, Hage .....seccs<ss< 1

Synlestes, De Selys .........0+6+ 17. Synlestes, De Selys ......... 5 dl

Chlorolestes, De Selys .......... 18. Chlorolestes, De Selys ....... 5

Allolestes, De Selys......esesee 19. Allolestes, De Selys .......... 1

Argiolestes, De Selys ............20. Argiolestes, De Selys ........ 8

Podopteryx, De Selys........-++. 21. Podopteryw, De Selys......... 1

Podolestes, De Selys ........0+5+ 22. Podolestes, De Selys ......... 1

Amphilestes, De Selys .......-+: 23. Amphilestes, De Selys........ 1

Légion 4. Platycnemis.

Hemiphlebia, De Selys......... 24. Hemiphlebia, De Selys ...... 1

; : 25: Perienemis, Hag. ....-....s0- 1

Amiphacnamts«De)Belyse.-:- ; 26. Amphicnemis, De Selys...... 1

Hypocnemis, Hag. «.........0006. 27. Hypocnemis, Hag.............. 1

28. Trichocnemis, De Selys...... 6

29. Calicnemis, De Selys......... 1

. 30. Metacnemis, Hag. ............ 2

UDA AG ENED) 31. Platycnemis, Charp. ......... 5

32. Psolocnemis, De Selys ...... 7

33. Allocnemis, De Selys......... 1

GENRES. S0US-GENRES.

20. Chlorocnemis, De Selys......... 34. Chlorocnemis, De Selys...... 2

21. Argiocnemis, De Selys.......+.- 35. Argiocnemis, De Selys ...... 4

Légion 5. Agrion.

36. Hyponewra, De Selys....00.+- 2

22. Argia, R., De Selys........+- jx . Argia, R., De Selys....... 100048

38. Onychargia, De Selys........ 1

39. Pyrrhosoma, Charp.......+.

40. Erythromma, Charp.......

‘ SI Agron. Haibres.cnicoccsecs cies.

232) Agrion, HADYs ...cecss+sseesnee 42. Nehalennia, De Selys..... 71

43. Ischnwra, Charp. ......++6

44. Anomalagrion, De Selys..

45. Brachybasis, De Selys....

: 46. Telebasis, De Selys.........

24, Telebasis, De Selys ....,..+++ Ay) liga fobas a De Selys ...... 63

48. Megalobasis, De Selys..

Légion 6. Protonewra.

: ; 49. Palemnema, De Selys.... 3

25. Platysticta, De Belys..:.+.. 4 56° Pigtysticta, De Selys.......... 6

51. Peristicta, Hag.... seal

52. Disparonewra, De Selys.. 500066 4

26. Allonewra, De Selys ......... 53. Allonewra, De Selys........... 14

54. Brachynewra, De Selys....... 1

55. Nososticta, Hag. ..........000+ 1

56. Idionewra, De Selys .......... 1

; 57. Neoneura, De Selys .......... 5

27. Protoneura, De Selys......... Baa oPyoteneura: Del Selves... 6

59. Micronewra, De Selys......... 1

Je propose le nom de Podopteryx pour une grande espéce

de Ile Aru, prise par M. Wallace, deposée au British

Museum. Ce genre est trés extraordinaire parce qu il

posséde une troisiéme nervure antecubitale (qui, il est

vrai, n’existe qu’entre les nervures costale est sous-

costale), ce qui rappelle en diminutif le genre Amphip-

teryx, qui est une Caloptérygine. Pour le reste des

caractéres de la réticulation, des antennes, et des appen-

dices anals du male, le Podopter yx est trés voisin des

Argiolestes, qui appartiennent & la légion des Podagrion.

Lespéce, qui je nomme P. roseo-notata, est trés singu-

here par les taches d’un rose carmin qui existent au

prothorax et sur le devant du thorax, coloration dont je

416 Baron E. de Selys-Longchamps sur les Odonates.

ne connais pas d’autre exemple parmi les Odonates.

Elle se rapproche beaucoup des Podolestes par la lévre

inférieure dont les deux pointes sont distantes, mais elle

en différe génériquement par l’espace post-costale de

plusieurs rangs de cellules, analogue 4 celui des Argio-

lestes.

L’espace basilaire est traversé aux quatre ailes par une

nervule, ce qui est jusqu’ 4 présent une exception unique

dans la sous-famille des Agrionina.

( 417 )

XVII. On the forms of Zygena Trifolii, with some re-

marks on the question of specific difference, as

opposed to local or phytophagic variation, im

that genus. By T. H. Briaas, B.A.

[ Read 6th November, 1871.]

In the ‘Zoologist’ for 1861, Mr. Newman observes,

touching another Zygena, that “it is a dangerous thing

to write about our British Zygene, if anyone incline to

take up the genus, I heartily wish him well through it.”

And yet I am about to ask aid from Lepidopterists

generally, in working out some curious facts connected

with this, confessedly, difficult genus—difficult, because

of the similarity of the perfect imsects themselves, more

so by the similarity and variation of their respective larve,

and yet even more so by the great confusion of their

synonymy; the difficulties are crowned by the fact of an

unusual and extraordinary affinity existing between the

different so-called species, and the frequent occurrence

of intermediate forms or hybrids—as yet, I cannot say

which—that are found amongst them. My theory and

proposition is, that two permanent forms of a Zygeana

now existing in England, and confused under the special

name T'rifolii, have an equal right with Loniceree to the title

of Species.

In the ‘Entomologists Annual’ for 1862, some re-

marks by Prof. Zeller in the ‘Isis’ for 1840, are

translated by Mr. Stainton, in which we find the follow-

ing words,—“ Since that Nature, in the formation of

species of Zygena (productive or reproductive) is not yet

at an end, appears to me conclusive, from the constant

copulation of specimens of different species without con-

straint, and when in a condition of perfect liberty.”

Uudoubtedly true as the fact is upon which Zeller

bases this theory, it is somewhat difficult to follow his

reasoning.

Once admit that a form has become a species, and

Nature is at an end, so far as relates to the formation of

that species ; the progress of Nature, then (if any) is only

to widen the separation. The sexual union of forms

might be of common occurrence, but the fact is, the

examples on record are not what we consider forms, but

well-defined species, as subsequently mentioned by Bois-

duval. Such a union would be strongly suggestive of

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—ParT Iv. (DECEMBER.) GG

418 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

the common origin of those Zygenc at no remote date,

and that a union of this nature was the result of a habit

acquired as a form, not yet being lost in the species ;

hence the species being, so to speak, new species, it would

be inferential to suppose forms, not yet species, existing,

yet to become species. If we examine the result of such

a union, would it not bear strongly upon the title of any

“form” to the rank of “species”? If the eggs resulting

were fertile, and produced moths like either parent, it

would go far to prove the parents only “forms” of each

other, not yet sufficiently separated to attain to the rank

of species. Ifthe eggs were fertile and produced hybrids,

it would show that each parent was a species of itself,

since they produced offspring unlike themselves, though

probably closely allied, and their common origin of no

very remote date. But if the eggs were sterile, would it

not show that the line of demarcation was already estab-

lished between those allied species, though the difference

might be so slight, as to baffle our efforts to define it?

I can find no instance on record, however, of even hybrids

being bred from these unions, although we constantly catch

specimens that if they are not hybrids, what are they?

In his Monograph of the genus published in 1829, M.

Boisduval observes, “ Je dois dire ici qu’il m’est arrivé

quelquefois de trouver des espéces différentes accouplées

ensemble, ainsi j’ai trouvé plusieurs fois la Filipendulee

accouplée avec la Peucedani, et la Trifolii avec Hippocre-

pidis ; j’ai fait pondre les femelles pour obtenir des hy-

brides, mais jamais je wai été assez heureux pour voir éclore

les wufs résultant de ces marriages adultérins, quoique les

ceufs des Zygenes éclosent tres facilement; il est possible,

cependant, que quelques uns éclosent dans la nature.”

So far as our present knowledge goes, therefore, the genus

seems to consist certainly of a number of closely allied

species, many of which species probably have different

forms, some of which forms may be on the journey towards

future species—the great difficulty yet remains, how to

distinguish a local or Phytophagic ‘ form’ from a ‘species,’

it being impossible to apply the above test of an acci-

dental natural union between two supposed species,

although when that does occur, one can test species or

forms by the result. We must therefore, in most cases,

separate ‘form’ from ‘species’ by other means. In the

‘ Entomologists Annual’ for 1861, Stainton, referring to

the allied genus Procris, says, ‘‘ attention has been called

Zygena Trifolii. 419

to the various forms which Procris Statices assumes in

different localities, but still we do not feel at liberty to

state that any new species of that genus have been added

to our lists, further series of specimens from various

localities are necessary; it may be, that in an insect so

local and so gregarious as a Procris, each little tribe or

colony will be found to differ more or less from other

tribes or colonies of the same species.”

These remarks apply with equal force to the Zygene

but since we do allow more than one 5-spotted native

species, it follows that whether or no Zeller’s theory is

the true one, a certain amount of constant variation

among these little tribes, will suffice to elevate it into a

presumptive species. If such a constant variation were

confined to one little tribe or colony, and not found else-

where, I presume such a colony would be considered a

local form of the nearest allied species, but if it can be

shown, as I intend to endeavour to do, in the present

paper, that an exactly similar constant variation occurs

im numerous colonies in various parts of England, and

that such constant variation is not confined to the imago,

but is also found in the respective larvee, such colonies

or tribes surely have acquired an equal right with Loni-

cerce to appear in our lists as ‘species.’

The chief points by which we can differentiate these

imsects, are—

(1.) The size and disposition of the red spots on the

fore-wings.

(2.) The black border to the hind-wings.

(3.) The antenne.

(4.) The time of appearance of the perfect insect.

(5.) The larva.

(6.) The food-plant.

(7.) The habitat.

The first two of these points are in some species most

variable, in others tolerably constant; the antenne aid

the determination considerably, when the one sex in one

species is compared with the same sex in another, but I

have too often seen in collections a series of males

marked “ Trifolii,” and the females with their slenderer

@Ga2

420 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

antenne labelled “ Lonicere”!! I attach great import-

ance to all the remaining points. Touching the larva,

the usual description of ‘ yellowish” or “ greenish,”

“with four rows of black spots,” is exactly equivalent to

describing the imago as “ green, with red spots,” or a

Smerinthus caterpillar as ‘green, with stripes on his

side, and a horn on his tail.” I have found these spots

on the larvee vary in the different forms or species in

size and shape, although the following remark will apply

to the caterpillars equally with the imagines, viz., that

the general type only can be described—aberrant ea-

amples will be found in which all the characteristics of

some other type are fully developed, but such aberrancy

seems confined to the then stage of the imsect’s existence ;

for instance, that if im a number of Lonicere caterpillars

we find one quite unlike the rest, and exactly resembling

a Trifolii caterpillar, such caterpillar will not be a T'rifoli

caterpillar accidentally in company with Lonicere, but

will be a Loniceree caterpillar that from some unknown cause

has assumed the markings of Trifolii, and the moth pro-

duced from such caterpillar will be a typical Lonicere.

Conversely, often when catching T’rifolii, say we imagine

we have come across a solitary example of Lonicere. In

most cases, such supposed Lonicere is only Trifolii imago

having assumed the characteristics of Donicere, and, in

all probability, produced from a typical Y'rifolii cater-

pillar. I have several times personally met with examples

of this singular fact, which, if further substantiated, will

go far to explain what many authors have remarked, the

occasional turning up of one species in the locality of

another. In short, that mimicry is common throughout

the genus.

I now proceed to differentiate my two supposed species

—comparing them with Pilipendule and Lonicere.

(1.) Zygena Filipendule.

Imago. Too well known for description. Antennz

mediate in thickness between Lonicere and the two forms

of Trifolii, those of the ¢ much thicker than those of

the 9 ; a very narrow black border to hind-wings in

both sexes.

Larva. Full description set out in the appendix to

this paper.

Zygena Trifolit. 421

Obs. The caterpillar varies much in different indivi-

duals, as subsequently mentioned, but apparently within

a given range of variation: mm some thousands I have

minutely examined, I have never seen the spots in the

shape of those of Lonicere as described.

(2.) Zygena Lonicere.

Imago. Nearly if not quite of the same size as Z. Fili-

pendule. Central red spots of fore-wings nearly always

disunited (this seems a constant character in this species,

while in 7'rifolit it is its most variable); hind-wings paler

and more pinky-red than in any other English five-

spotted species. The antennz are much slenderer than

those of the other species, and considerably longer than

in Trifolii (either form), those of the ¢ being, as usual,

much thicker than those of the @? ; this character

cannot fail to distinguish it at once from either form of

Trifolii, care being taken to compare the same sex; the

difference in the thickness of the antenne between a

do Lonicere and a ¢ of either form of T'rifoli is very

striking, but that between a 3 Lonicere anda 9 Trifoliv

very small. Neglect of this common precaution has

aided the present confusion.

Black border to hind-wings not very broad, broader in

the ¢ than in the 9 ; in typical specimens much sinuate

on the inner margin.

Larva. Fully described in the appendix as Zygena,

No. 2. The leading characteristics which differentiate

it from other species are—the long hairs, greener ground

colour, more conspicuous orange spot, and different

shape of the black spots as set out in the description.

Time of appearance of perfect insect same as Milipen-

dule.

Locality. Hill sides; common; often in parks where

fern grows. Never to my knowledge in marshy pluces.

(3.) Zygqena

(Hereinafter called ‘the late T’rifolw.’)

Imago. Expans. alar. 1’ 2” tol’ 5”. Antenne much

thicker and shorter than in Filipendule or Lonicere,

those of the ¢ being much thicker than those of the ?.

422 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

Tn typical specimens the fore-wings are of a very brilliant

green, with the red spots large, and generally with the

central pair more or less united, especially in the ¢.

In the male all the spots often coalesce and form one

band, but this rarely occurs in the ¢. Hind-wings

bright deep red, with a broad black border, slightly

sinuate on the inner margin; the border is broader

in the ¢ than im the ¢.

Larva fully described in the appendix to this paper as

Zygena, No. 1 (Lrifolii).

The insect is found in marshy places ; the caterpillar

feeds on the large sort of Trefoil that grows among the

rushes, often attaining the height of a foot, or more.

The insect is exceedingly local, generally being confined

to one little spot only.

Time of appearance of perfect imsect varies from

the second week in June to the second week in July,

according to the season, but always about one month later

than the neat described species; 1t appears at the same

time as Filipendule.

I have never yet found this insect in company with

Z. Filipendule ; it is apparently rarer than the next species.

In most collections I have found the males of this species

classed as curious varieties of Vrifolii, or as Lonicere

with the spots confluent ; the females I have found nearly

always classed as typical Lonicere.

It is distmguished from 7'rifolit usually so-called (the

next species), by its size, its larva, its locality, its food

plant, and especially by its time of appearance.

(4.) Zygena Trifoli.

(The small form, hereinafter called ‘the early T'rifoliz.’)

This is the insect usually known as T’rifolii ; expans.

alar. I’ 2” to 1’ 3”. Antennz almost as thick as in the

last species. Head much more densely clothed with hairs.

In typical specimens the fore-wings are of a darker green

than in any other species, with the central spots small

and disunited, but in some colonies the confluent spots

are of common occurrence. Hind-wings dark red, in

some specimens quite crimson, with a much broader black

border than in any other British species ; with a tendency

to no sinuation on the inner margin, but to a uniform

breadth throughout.

Zygena Trifolir. 423

Larva. I cannot say that I have yet bred the insect,

but I subsequently adduce the evidence of others on the

subject.

This insect is found in dry-places,* and is widely dis-

tributed, especially on the sea-coast.

Time of appearance of imago, from second week in

May to second week in June, always about one month

earlier than the last species.

I have nearly always found this insect in company with

4. Filipendule.

The knowledge of the existence of these two forms of

Trifolii, as forms, is no novelty either to our English or

Continental authors, and varieties of them, not the types,

were described as species by the late Mr. Stephens ; the

confusion in the synonymy almost baffles elucidation, and

is by no means the least intricate problem in the genus.

Fabricius in his ‘Entomologia Systematica (1793) gives

only one 5-spotted species, viz. :—

Lott.

Sphine Loti, W. V.

Sphine Lonicere, Esper,

And he observes concerning it—

dule.” As Fabricius only knew one 5-spotted species, the

expression nimis afimis cannot be read in the same way as

if he had our present knowledge; the most aberrant five-

spot, to us, would probably have been ninis affinis to

Fabricius. So, in fact, it is impossible to say which insect

the Loti, Fab. was; the probability is m favour of the

Lonicere of the present day.

Haworth, following Fabricius, gives only Zygena Loti,

also adding “habitat in Loto corniculato ;” evidently

supposing his Loti to be the Loti of Fabricius; but the

following remark occurs in a note to Humphreys and

Westwood’s “ British Moths, and their transformations.”

* Tdo not say that the early Trifolii is exclusively confined to dry

places; as Filipendule is often found in marshes, this species ought also,

but I have never found it in marshes.—T. H. B.

424 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

“Mr. Stephens refers the Z. Loti, of Haworth, to the pre-

ceding species (Loti, H. & W., Lonicere, Hiib.), but

having received, however, from Mr. Haworth specimens

of his L. Loti, | am enabled to state that they are iden-

tical with the Trifolii of Stephens.”

Hibner figures—

On p. 2, fig. 7, Lonicere, 9; pl. 5-32, Loti, 9, a six-

spotted species; pl. 17-79, Trifolu, 9; pl. 82, Loti, g,a

small 5-spotted species, apparently V'rifolw of the present

day ; pl. 29-133, Orobi, Trifolii with central spots disunited ;

pl. 184 and 135, Trifolu, males of Prifolii with central

spots more or less confluent; pl. 35-160, Lonicere, 8.

His figure of the caterpillar of Lonicerw, together with

those of the moths, are very good representations of the

Lonicere of the present day. His caterpillar of Loti is

unlike any I have ever seen, perhaps it is the larva of the

6-spotted species.

Boisduval, in 1829, published a most elaborate and

valuable monograph of the genus, and in his section of

the genus with ‘‘ cing taches plus ou moins arrondies,”

the following species are included.

A. Ailes un peu transparentes.

Corsica, Meliloti, Exulans, Cynare, Achillez,

Janthina, Concinna.

B. Ailes d’un bleu foncé.

Lonicere, Trifolii.

I need only mention two insects in the first section,

Achillece with the fifth spot securiform (because Loti, Fab.,

is given as a Synonym) and Meliloti, the origin of further

confusion.

Meuiwot1, Z. Meliloti, Ochs.

Sphine Loti (mas.), Hiibner.

Meliloti, Esper.

This insect has the wings most decidedly semi-trans-

parent, nearly as much so as Z. Minos, and has not yet

occurred here.

Zygena Trifolir. 425

In the sub-section ‘ Ailes d’un bleu foneé,” the two

species are thus differentiated :—

Trrrotir (no synonym of Loti or Lonicere attached).

Trifolii, Ochs., Esper., Hiib., Borkh.

M. Boisduval says of the caterpillar, ‘‘ on rémarque

en outre sous le ventre un petit point noir sur chaque

anneau,” a character I have never seen in the larva of

the late Trifolii, but under the name T’'rifolii, so far as I

can comprehend, M. Boisduval comprised all the forms

or varieties of T’rifolii. *

Lonicer® thus stands. JL. Lonicerce, Ochs., Esper,

Hiib.

Z. Loti, Fab. (Loti, Fab., as I have before mentioned,

Boisduval also gives as a synonym of Achillew).

M. Boisduval’s remarks, ‘‘ Elle est de la taille de la fili-

penaulz avec laquelle elle a été quelques fois confondue.

La variété taches réunies en une seule bande irreguliére

est assez rare;”? and of the caterpillar, “‘ On rémarque

sur chaque anneau un point jaune placé entre les deux

bandes ;” and also its “‘ apple-green” colour, sufficiently

serve to identify the msect with the Lowcere of our

present lists.

From this time the Continental authors seem only to

have allowed these two species, but our English authors

did not accept this view.

Stephens, in his illustrations, gives three 5-spotted

species, viz. :—Meliloti, Ochs.; Vrifolii, Esper. ; and Loti,

Fab.

In describing Meliloti, he agrees with Boisduyal’s de-

scription of the continental Meliloti, and his own insects

in the British Museum do not agree with his description

as regards the semi-transparency of the wings. Stephens’

specimens of Meliloti in the British Museum are small,

not typical specimens of the late T’rifoli of the present

paper.

Of ca Mr. Stephens observes, “alar. expans. 11’-

V 2”-1' 3”. Found abundantly in many parts of the

* M. Boisduval observes, however, that Trifolii appears some time before

Filipendula, whereas the late Trifolii appears at the same time.—T. H. B.

426 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

country, at the end of May and beginning of June. It has

generally been considered the Loti of Fabr., but that in-

sect is considerably larger and is subsequently noticed.

Caterpillar dusky yellow, with four rows of black spots,

two on the back, and two on each side; feeds on trefoil.”

I have examined these specimens in the British Museum,

and they are the small early T'rifolii of the present paper,

Of Loti, Mr. Stephens says, ‘‘ Considerably larger than

the foregoing, which it greatly resembles. Caterpillar

pale green, with a row of black spots on the back, and

one on each side; the latter in the females with a bright

yellow streak beneath.” These specimens in the British

Museum are small specimens of the Lonicerce of the pre-

sent day.

Mr. Stephens’ three species will therefore be as follows—

Meliloti, Ste. = Small specimens of the late T'rifolit.

Trifolu, Ste. = Harly Trifolit.

Loti, Ste. = Lonicere.

Stephens’ opinion is followed by Prof. Westwood in

his “ Brit. Moths, and their transformations,” where the

three species are thus set out :—

A. Lott.

Loti, Fab., Don., Steph., Wood, Duncan, not Sphinx

Loti of Hiibner and Esper.

Lonicere, Hsper.

A. TRIFOLII.

Trifolii, Esper, Stephens, Wood.

Z. Loti, Haw.

S. Loniceree, (?) Esper.

A. Mettizort.

Meliloti, Esper, Och., Steph., Wood.

Sphine Loti, Hiibner.

The observations attached to ‘ Loti, or Lonicere: as it

is now Called, “‘ here again varieties occur, in which the

spots are more or less confluent;” and “ Mr. Curtis

states, that it is common in marshy places, at the beginning

of May, and the beginning and end of June,’ must be

attributed to some other species.

Zygena Trifolic. 4.27

Mr. Humphreys expresses an opinion in Westwood

and Humphreys’ “ British Moths, and their transforma-

tions,” that all the five spots “ constitute but one species ;”

and adds, ‘‘I have not figured the larva of A. Loti, as I

cannot but suspect that there has been some mistake

respecting it; for while the species in its perfect state is

so very similar to A. Filipendule, the caterpillar is

represented as totally different, not only in colour, but

also in shape, being what is termed onisciform.”

Hiibner, from whom Mr. Humphreys copied, repre-

sents A. Milipendule larva as stretched out feeding, A.

Joti larva as in repose; and it is only in repose that

these larvae assume an onisciform appearance, so that

portion of the difficulty is soon explained; as to the

colour, Mr. Humphreys has erroneously considered his

lott and Hiibner’s as identical. Hiibner’s loti, 9, as

before stated, being a 6-spotted species, and his loti, ¢,

is given in the very work that Mr. Humphreys intro-

duces this observation into as a synonym of A. Meliloti!!

In a note to the first edition of the same work, Mr.

Bree observes, ‘The two species (£lipendule and Loti)

occur in this neighbourhood (near Coventry), but in

different localities, Loti being found in heathy bogs, Fili-

pendulee in low meadows and grassy woods. Occasion-

ally I have met with specimens of each in the locality of

the other, but this was not usual, which tended to con-

vince me, amongst other circumstances, that they were

distinct species... . . . I have often seen the cater-

Note. In the National Collection in the British Museum, only ‘Tri-

foliti’ and ‘ Lonicere’ are recognized.

Trifolii comprises :-—

(1.) Trifolii, Esper.

(2.) Meliloti, Ste., late Trifolii ;

specimens with spots not confluent.

(3.) A fine series of typical spe-

cimens of the marsh, or late Trifolit

of this paper, queried as Trifolii.

(4.) Three abnormal varieties of

the late Trifolii (?).

(5.) The early Trifolii of this

paper, but not typical specimens.

(6.) Typical specimens of the

early Trifolii, labelled ‘ Orobi,’ Hiib.

Lonicere comprises :—

(1.) Lonicerw, Esper.

(2.) Lonicere, Hiibner; both

typical Lonicere.

(3.) Loti, Ste.; small specimens

of Lonicere.

In no one specimen of Lonicere

in the Brit. Mus. are the central

red spots of the fore-wing confluent.

THB:

428 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

pillars of each, and though I have never compared them

side by side, yet I can safely say there is no very obvious

difference between them.” The Loti here mentioned as

inhabiting heathy bogs was probably not Loti, Humphrey

& West. (Lonicere), which, so far as my experience goes,

does not inhabit marshes, but the large late Trifolii of the

present paper.

Now if, in all these works, all the scientific names were

omitted, I think any one carefully reading the facts

recorded, would come to the conclusion that, at least,

three species or forms were included in the descriptions,

even when only professing to describe two. All the

authors (since Hiibner) recognise by “ Vrifolii” a small

Zygena occurring in May and: June, with a broad black

border to the hind-wings. If, then, dismissing 7'rifolit

from our minds, we compare the descriptions of Loti or

Lonicere, by which name authors seem to have meant,

pretty unanimously, a larger insect than 7’rifolii occurring

later in the year, we find decided contradictory evidence.

’ Described as “ habitat in Loto corniculato,” true of

Lonicere, but not of the marsh insect, Boisduval’s descrip-

tion of the caterpillar being quite at variance with that

of the marsh, or late T’rifolii, the confluency of the spots

as “assez rare,” and “ of common occurrence,” described

as “found in marshy places,” where Lonicerce does not

occur, all which to my mind poimts to the conclusion,

that Loti or Lonicere often included, beside itself, a large

species of 5-spotted Zygena inhabiting marshy places ; but

that often this large species, if small or not typical speci-

mens, got included with Trifolii the early species.

The publication of Mr. Stainton’s Manual, produced a

change. Mr. Stainton following the continental authors,

only allows two species, Z'rifolii and Lonicere, for the first

time so-called in this country; the points of difference

Mr. Stainton relies on, are, in Z'rifoli, the central pair

of red spots large and generally united; in Lonicere,

small and never united, and the thicker antenne, and

broader black border to the hind-wings in T'rifolii.. This

opinion was nearly universally accepted; a Zygcena always

approximated to one or the other, and was classed ac-

cordingly ; but I have found out two points from inspec-

tion of a great many cabinets ; first—the type of the small

Zygena Trifolir. 429

early male Trifolii with the broadest black band of any,

but the central red spots small and seldom united, was

regarded as an aberrant variety—while the female of the

marsh form with antenne just as slender asa ¢ Lonicere,

and an equally narrow black border, has been nearly in-

variably classed as Lonicerce (I am only speaking of ordi-

nary collectors). Very shortly after the publication of the

part of Stainton’s Manual, comprising the Zygene, Mr.

Newman expressed his dissatisfaction. Speaking of the in-

sects and the authors, he says (Intelligencer, vol. 1, p. 180)

that he cannot understand them, the them being equally

applicable to either or both, the insects or the authors.

In Doubleday’s list (2nd edition) Lonicerce and T'rifolii

are the only two 5-spotted species, and their synonymy

is extremely scanty, Z'rifolii being given as T’rifolii, Ks-

per, and Loti, Haw., and Lonicerce as Lonicere, Esper

(Fabricius, Hiibner, Stephens, or Westwood not being

mentioned). In his recent list, Staudinger follows the

same arrangement, but he apparently separates the types

of the early Trifolii under one of the following varieties.

B. Var. Orobi, mac. mediis separatis.

C. Var. Syracusia, minor, al. ant. maculis parvis dis-

junctis, post. margine lato nigro.

On June 16th, 1864, I found Z. Trifolii in abundance in

some rough dry fields, abounding in Lotus corniculatus,

bordering on Barnwell Wold, Northamptonshire; the

insects were very much worn, of a very small form, in

fact, types of the “early” Trifolii; Filipendule, which

also occurs there, was just coming out. The Trifoli

were so worn, I could catch but few worth keeping.

On the 27th of the some month, in the same year,

I found the large late Z’rifolii just coming out in a

marshy spot in Tilgate Forest. I also got many

pupex. The insects were so much larger, and so different

in appearance from the Barnwell Wold specimens, and

the fact of the same species being so much later in a

much more southern and less exposed locality, and the

thickness of the antenne in each, and the generally con-

fluent central spots in the Tilgate insect, precluding the

possibility of referring either to Lonicerw, I was at once

struck with the impression that they were not one and

the same species (I had never taken T’rifolii before this

year). ilipendule does not occur here.

430 My. T. H. Briggs on

In the summer of 1866, I heard that Trifolii occurred

in Stowe Wood near Oxford, and I found a marshy place

exactly similar to the spot in Tilgate Forest; here, on

the 17th May, with the aid of M. Dembski, I found a few

very young larve of a species of Zygcena, feeding on the

large species of V'rifoliwm I have before mentioned,

amongst the rushes; when they were larger I described

them (see Appendix, No. 1).

I then wrote at once to Mr. Whall at Thurning, close

to Barnwell Wold, begging if it were possible, for some

larvee of the small early V’rifolii found there. One cater-

pillar of a Zygcena was all that could be found ; Mr. Whall

stating that the caterpillars were nearly all spun up (Obs.—

The Stowe Wood larv were quite young). This cater-

pillar was quite different in its markings from the Stowe

Wood larve, as will be seen by comparing its description

(Appendix, No. 3). As Filipendule also occurs here, i

is just possible that it might have been a variety of that

insect, but it agreed with Mr. Hellins’ description of T'ri-

folii (Ent. Mo. Mag. iii. p. 118) in the peculiar shape of the

dorsal black spots; Mr. Hellins especially mentions the

x -like dorsal black spots. I have spoken of the dorsal

line, i. e., the ground-colour, as consisting of a row of

transverse lozenge-shaped spots, this is the same peculiarity

differently expressed. I determined to write to Mr.

Hellins as soon as convenient, asking if his 7'rifolii came

from a dry or moist locality—I anticipated the answer,

dry. This caterpillar unfortunately died.

Before this larva died, I wrote to J. H. Wood, Ksq., of

Tarrington, in Herefordshire, who had informed me that

Trifolii and Lonicere both occurred in that neighbour-

hood. He wrote me at once, stating that he was unsuc-

cessful in finding me any T’rifolii larvee, but sent six

Lonicerce larvee feeding on Lotus corniculatus ; these are

the larvee described in the appendix to this paper as

Zygena, No. 2. I then wrote to Folkestone for larvee of

Filipendule, which duly arrived; thus at the same time

I had four distinct varieties of Zygena larve, Filipendule,

Lonicere, and the late marsh T’rifolii, all of which I bred,

and the supposed early Yrifolii which died, but whose

peculiar characteristics, so different from the late T’rifoli,

is corroborated by Mr. Hellins, as before mentioned. I

took all the larve to Professor Westwood, who himself

enlarged, and closely corrected the appended descriptions.

Zygena Trifolit. 431

On the 13th of June this same year (1866), I went to

the marshy place in Tilgate Forest, before mentioned, in

search for larvee, hoping, of course, to find them identical

in their markings with the Stowe Wood caterpillar. I

found some Zygena larve there in tolerable abundance,

feeding on the same plants as in Stowe Wood Marsh ;

their markings, to the minutest particular, were identical

with the Stowe Wood caterpillars, the same shght range

of variation, and no more. These larve afterwards, in the

first week in July, produced the late T'rifolii I had found

there in 1864, and at the same time the Stowe Marsh

caterpillars began to come out, and produced the late

Trifolii, exactly identical with those of Tilgate Forest.

Here, then, were two colonies, one in Northamptonshire,

one in Sussex, traced from larva to imago, and exactly

agreeing in every point, including time of appearance.

On the 8rd of July, while these insects from Tilgate and

Stowe Wood were just beginning to come out, I visited

Barnwell Wold, a locality intermediate in geographical

position, and, as I expected, the early Trifolii was over ;

I caught five only, very worn; I was told it had been

abundant.

I had been also informed of another locality near

Oxford, where T'rifolii occurred, viz., the dry slopes of

Shotover Hill; in 1867, M. Dembski sent me two Zygena

larvee found there: these larve had all the characteristics

of the Barnwell Wold caterpillar, to wit, the tendency

to the confluency of the dorsal spots, and the tendency

to the x -like shape, which I have never seen in the late

Trifolii; to breed one of these was the only link I now

wanted, and at a consultation held with Professor West-

wood, it was determined to put one into whiskey and

water, and breed the other; the weakest looking was

accordingly consigned to the bottle, and two days after-

wards the other on which I rested my hopes, produced

an abundant crop of Ichneumons.

In 1870, on June 17th, the late Trifolii was not out im

Tilgate Forest ; on June 18th, I found the early Trifolii at

Folkestone over, I caught a few worn specimens only.

I had written a few days previously to Mr. Hellins, asking

him the nature of the locality of the caterpillars described

by him in ‘Ent. Mo. Mag. iii. p. 118,’ and also sending

him some larve, of the late Tvrifolii, from Stowe Wood,

Mr. Hellins kindly answered my letter at once, and said,

432 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

-T have compared the larva you sent me with Mr.

Buckler’s figures, and find it more nearly resembles Fili-

pendule than Trifolii, both species appear to vary much

in the larva state. . . . I imagine the Trifold spoken of

by me (Ent. Mo. Mag. iii., p. 118) ) were the ordinary sea-

side fellows, feeding on Birds-foot Trefoil. . . . I see Mr.

Buckler’s figures decidedly gave the long hairs you now

mention to Lonicerce.”

The caterpillar of the early T’rifolii seems very hard to

find, possibly from the fact that where the insect occurs,

its food plant is always in such abundance; the food

plant of the marsh, or late T'rifolii is often limited in its

range, and the larva consequently easily found; all my

endeavours to get caterpillars of the early T’rifolii were

fruitless. Dr. Wood, however, sent me from Tarrington

five larvee of, as he considered, Lonicerw, stating that

they came from a different locality from the former Loni-

cere, about eight miles distant from it; they were found

on a dry bank. These larvee I considered to be the early

Trifolii, but they possessed the * conspicuous yellow spot”

so many authors have observed in Lonicere (the long

hairs, the greenish ground colour, and the little tail to the

posterior lateral spot, observed both by Mr. Buckler and

myself were all absent) ; the lateral row of spots were

nearly confluent, dorsal spots as large as in Milipendule,

dorsal line narrow in all; the minute black spot below

the second lateral spot present in one individual, and in

another individual there was a strong tendency to the x -

like spots, but the spots were only nearly confluent; they

nearly approximated to some of the varieties of Z. Fili-

pendulew, except in the much clearer and paler ground

colour. In short, they united certain characteristics of

the caterpillar of the early Vrifolw with that of Lonicere ;

the characteristics of the larva of the late Trifolu were

altogether absent. I only bred one, a g, which, on June

20, produced an undoubted Z. Loniceree, as evidenced by

the structure of the antenne, but there was a slight

tendency to a confluency of the red spots of the fore-

wing—a character of the marsh T'rifolii. I purpose to

investigate this colony further, as the result is eminently

unsatisfactory. Mr. Buckler has published descriptions

of two varieties of Lonicere larvee (Ent. Mo. Mag. iv. 253),

but both comprise the salient points of difference, that

Loniceree ought to possess; particular mention is made in

Zygena Trifolit. 433

the first, of the greenish ground colour, and the orange

spot, but no mention of the “little tail;”’ but in a draw-

ing Mr. Buckler has kindly sent me of a segment of one

of the variety found feeding on Lathyrus pratensis, this

little tail is accurately delineated. Mr. Buckler has

kindly given me all the information in his power, and

has sent me diagrams of the 6th segment in T'rifolii, Loni-

cere, and Filipendule; this diagram of T'rifolii differs

from my marsh Trifolii altogether, having the lateral

spots united below, and the tendency to the x -shaped

dorsal spots.

Now then, to sum up. Of the 5-spotted species in

the imagos, we have Lonicere distinguished by its slender

antenne; a Zygena equally as large as Lonicere, appear-

ing about the same time, found in marshes; and a Zy-

gena found in dry places, appearing a month before the

marsh one, and usually known as 1'rifolit.

I have found no intermediate time of appearance, in

the four colonies I have especially observed ; in Hunting-

donshire, Oxfordshire, Sussex, and Kent, the early 7’ri-

folii in the most northern and most southern locality,

has appeared simultaneously; and also the late T’'rifolir

in the two intermediate localities, the early Trifolii always

about one month before the other, and this invariably

the case in the course of eight years’ observation of the

colonies. Is not this fact alone opposed to the supposi-

tion of their being simply “ forms” of each other ?

As regards the caterpillars, the salient points of differ-

ence in Lonicere have been observed by Boisduval, and

seem to be the same now as the “ point jaune” is dis-

tinctly observed by Mr. Buckler and myself.

Of the two T’rifolii—one has the spots very small, and

never * any tendency to the x -like spots, and never has

the lateral spots united ; the other has the spots invariably

larger, lateral spots nearly united, and a more or less

tendency to confluency in the dorsal spots, and the as-

sumption of the x-like form. I have not seen any

intermediate form of caterpillar in 7’rifolii, there is agap,

but Filipendule larva has a range of variation extending

* During the period 1864-1871, I have examined some hundreds.—

“iy T. H

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1871.—PART IV. (DECEMBER.) HH

434 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

nearly over both these forms of Trifolii, and Filipendulee

larva seems to be a connecting link between the two Trifoli.

But throughout all the caterpillars of Filipendule, Lon-

cere, the early and the late T'rifoli, the differences relied

on as determinant, exist in a rudimentary form in the rest.

The conspicuous orange spot in Lonicere, is more faintly

to be traced in the rest; the ‘little tail? im the same

insect, often appears in Milipendule and in the early Tri-

folii, as a “minute black spot below the second of the

two lateral spots,” and the x-like spots themselves are

only the smaller spots magnified and developed into a

certain shape. All the caterpillars may be described as

yellowish-green or greenish-yellow, with two dorsal rows of

black spots, larger or smaller, pointed or rounded, confluent

or separate, and a lateral row on each side more or less con-

fluent, and a more or less apparent dusky line above the

feet.

I have not said anything about the cocoons, as they are

all similar; a Lonicerw, however, bred in 1866, spun a

cocoon which presented a reticulate appearance. The

one I bred this year did the same, others that spun up,

however, did not, so I suspect this coimcidence was ac-

cidental.

Now, if we find this constancy of variation and deve-

lopment and time of appearance, although there are no

primary distinctive differences ranging through these four

forms, are we to regard them as species or forms or what ?

Do other forms, perhaps intermediate, exist? Willnota

further examination of the general type of other colonies

show? I donot anticipate much trouble about the mimics

and the hybrids, they are exceptions, and only trouble-

some so far as regards the particular specimen in question.

A colony cannot be a colony of hybrids, or a colony of

mimics ; either they are forms or species, and surely this

is capable of elucidation. One word as to the hybrids

and mimics; a hybrid usually (if it be a hybrid) shows

signs of degeneration, which might occur throughout a

brood; mimicry would be peculiar to the individual.

This year on the 16th June at Folkestone, Pilipendule

larvee swarmed in the warren, but no moths could I find;

on Castle Hill the moths were out, but they were very

small, and with a tendency to the obliteration of the sixth

spot; antenne shorter than usual; one specimen, a ¢,

Zygena Trifolit. 435

is of the size, contour, and has the broad black border to

the hind-wings, of the early Vrifolii found at Folkestone

(which was out). Surely these were Hybrids?

I possess a bred late Trifolii (3) that has assumed the

more slender antenne of Lonicere ; also a bred Lonicercee

(3) that has much shorter antenne than usual, approach-

ing to V'rifolii. These two bred specimens are hard to

distinguish when placed together.

I also possess a remarkably large female Zygena with

jive spots on the upper surface of the fore-wings, and six

beneath ; I caught it by itself, so cannot decide if it is a

Filipendule mimicing the late Trifolii, or vice versa ; it

has none of the appearances of a hybrid.

This season has been a bad one for V’rifolii, but I shall

hope next year to be able to elucidate some further facts

connected with the history of these troublesome little

creatures.

APPENDIX.

Larvee of the genus ZyGmna.

Generic characteristics. Legs sixteen; head very

small; larva short and fat, and sluggish; when in repose

assumes an onisciform appearance, but not.so when

stretched out feeding. .

Larva of Z, Filipendule (fall fed).

Body with whitish hairs scattered over it, but with a

few black hairs on the back; hairs short, head and fore-

legs black; head with transverse upper lip, and the

membrane at the base of the antennz white ; ground

colour greenish-yellow, arranged in a dorsal line, and

two lines on each side; dorsal line with a brighter

yellow spot in the fold formed by the hind-margin of

Nore. I observed the food plant of the late Trifolii last year, in a

marshy place on Wimbledon Common, but could find no larva. This

season I have received information of the capture of a few very large

Trifolii in July, just in one spot only in the marsh, where I saw the food

plant.

HH 2

436 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

each segment, the dorsal line becomes much narrower in

the anterior segments. On each side of the dorsal line

a row of large black spots, two on each segment, of

which the anterior is the larger, with the inner posterior

angle emarginate, and rounded on the side next the

head ; the posterior spot is narrow, and curved on the

inner margin. In the segments immediately following

the head, the anterior margin is narrowly blackish, often

only partially margined with black, with the dorsal spots

confluent, the anterior being greatly reduced in size ;

below which row of spots, a pale lateral line, with a

bright yellow spot in the fold formed by the hind margin

of each segment; below which line another row of black

spots, two on each segment, of which the posterior spot

on each segment is nearly spherical, and the anterior

larger, and curved backwards, so as to terminate below

the spherical spot, but sometimes uniting with it in the

posterior segments ; it (the anterior spot) also bears the

black spiracles ; the lower portion of this curved spot in

which the spiracles are placed is often separated from

the rest, as in Zygena, No. 1 (Trifolii) ; a minute black

spot is often placed below the posterior of these two

spots, but this minute spot is as often obsolete. Then

follows another pale lateral line; and between this line

and the feet is a curved blackish mark on each segment,

bearmg a pale transverse lunule in its lower portion; a

slight dusky line at the base of the feet; pro-legs and

underside pale, with an interrupted dusky line (occasion-

ally almost obsolete) down the middle of the belly.

Feeds on Trefoil, &. Described June, 1866, from

larvee taken at Folkestone.

The larva has a great range of variation; its limit

towards the confluence of the black spots is complete

confluency ; the angles become developed, and assume

the x-hke appearance of the early Vrifolii, but the

ground-colour always more dusky, but the usual type is

as described.

The limit the other way towards the obliteration of the

black spots is seldom beyond that in the above descrip-

tion, the limit is attained before the range of variation

of the marsh species begins. In some thousands, I have

never seen one with the spots so small, and consequently

the dorsal line so broad as in the late Zrifolii; and I

have before remarked, that I have never seen the spots

in the shape of those of Lonicere, as described.

Zygena Trifolit. 437

Larva of Zygena, No. 1 (late T'rifoli) .

Body with short white hairs scattered over it, with

very few black hairs mixed with the white on the back.

Head and fore-legs black; head with transverse upper-

lip and membrane at base of antenne, white ; ground-

colour pale yellowish, arranged in five lines, one dorsal

and two lateral on each side ; dorsal line broad, yellower

in the fold formed by the hind margin of each segment ;

on each side of the dorsal line, a row of black spots, two

on each segment, of which the anterior spot is the larger,

somewhat semicircular, with the flat side turned towards

the anus, but coming to a point on the back ; posterior

spot narrow, curved on the anterior margin, approaching

in shape to a lunule ; in the segment immediately follow-

ing the head, the dorsal spots are confluent, the anterior

being greatly reduced in size, the anterior margin of

this segment is partially margined with blackish, leaving

the middle portion of the yellowish ground-colour, below

which row of spots, a broad pale yellowish line with a

yellow spot in the fold, formed by the hind margin of

each segment, but this spot is not very conspicuous,

below which line another row of black spots on each side,

two on each segment, of which the anterior is larger and

curved backwards, and bears the black spiracles, but

very often the lower portion of this spot which bears the

black spiracles, is separated from the rest, and sometimes

dwindles down to a mere dot. No minute black spot

below the smaller of the two lateral spots, as is often the

case in IMilipendule; below which row of spots is the

lower lateral line, and below this line and the feet is a

row of dusky spots bearing a pale transverse lunule in

the lower portion of each, but which lunule is sometimes

absent, or nearly so; a dusky, very narrow streak at the

base of the feet ; pro-legs and underside yellowish, with

a dusky interrupted line down the middle of the belly.

Feeds on the large Trefoil found in marshes (and on that

plant only).

Described June, 1866, from larve found in marshy

ground in Stowe Wood; confirmed by others found in

Tilgate Forest in a similar locality, and since confirmed

by examination from year to year.

Take a Filipendule larva, give it a much clearer and

cleaner ground-colour, diminish its spots below the limit

438 Mr. T. H. Briggs on

of smaller spots in Filipendule, so as to make all the lines

broader, and you will have a specimen of this caterpillar.

As the variation in Filipendule tends towards con-

fluence, the variation here is towards obliteration ; but the

caterpillar is very constant, its range of variation very

small, as the limit towards magiitude of the spots in this

species is attained before the limit of Filipendule towards

obliteration commences ; it follows, as a matter of course,

that I have never seen any tendency towards the x -lhke

dorsal markings, or ever seen the lateral spots united.*

Larva of Zygena, No. 2 (Lonicere) .

Body with long white hairs scattered over it, with some

black hairs mixed with the white on the back, hairs

much longer and more dense than in the other species ;

head and fore-legs black, head with transverse upper-lip,

membrane at base of antenne, and articulations of lower

organs of the mouth, white ; ground-colour arranged in

five lines, one dorsal and two lateral on either side; very

pale yellowish tinged with green, sometimes quite green ;

dorsal line slightly yellowish in the fold formed by the

hind margin of each segment, and rather narrow, not

being nearly as broad as in the last species (the late

Trifolii); on each side of the dorsal line a row of large

black spots, two on each segment which almost meet,

and in some cases are confluent; the anterior is shghtly

the larger, but there is very little difference im size, both

being somewhat pear-shaped; the anterior with the

larger portion below, the posterior with the larger portion

above, leaving a small pale angulate space in the middle

of the back of each segment; below which row of spots a

narrow pale line with a very conspicuous bright yellow spot

in the fold formed by the hind margin of each segment,

below which line another row of black spots on each side,

two on each segment, united in their lower extremities,

* Filipendule is widely distributed, and its larva feeds on many plants ;

the larva is very variable. Zygena (No. 1) is very local, and its larva

feeds, so far as I know, on one plant only; its larva is very constant.

Are these facts coincidental or explanatory? I forgot to observe, as a

further proof of distinctness between this species and the early Trifolit,

that some larva I tried to feed on Birds’-foot Trefoil, wasted away, and

died.—T. H. B.

Zygena Trifolii. 439

in which is placed the black spiracles, the posterior spot

emitting a small transverse spot towards the pro-legs (the

‘little tail? of Mr. Buckler); below which the lower

narrow lateral line, below which a row of dusky patches

of a lunate form, sometimes bearing a small transverse

lunule ; another dusky patch on the base of the feet ;

pro-legs and underside pale, but often irregularly suf-

fused with dusky markings, the upper part of the anterior

segment is narrowly margined with blackish.

Described in June, 1866, from some larve sent me

from Tarrington. Found on Tarrington Common, feed-

ing on Birds’-foot Trefoil.

This larva seems to have a certain range of variation,

as is evidenced by the two varieties described by Mr.

Buckler. The latter of which varieties agrees exactly

with the above description (see Ent. Mo. Mag. iv. 253) ;

it will be observed that this variety that agrees so exactly

well with my description, was found feeding on the same

food-plant, Lotus corniculatus. The question naturally

suggests itself, does the variation in the larva depend on

the food plant. It is odd that the caterpillar of the late

Trifolii always found on the same plant should be so

constant.

As to the very different larvee, resembling the early

Trifolii before mentioned, as I only bred one moth (rest

died in pupa), it is useless to attempt an opinion; the

moth may be a mimic.

No. 3. Larva of a Zygcena, supposed to be the ordinary

Trifolit.

Body with short white hairs scattered over it, with a

very few black hairs on the back; head and pro-legs

black ; head with transverse upper-lip, and membrane at

base of antenne, white; ground-colour pale yellowish,

arranged in five lines, one dorsal and two lateral on either

side; on each side of the dorsal line, a row of large black

spots, two on each segment, confluent or nearly so, but

each coming to a point on the back, which makes the

dorsal line look like a row of transverse lozenge-shaped spots

on the middle of the back of each segment, preceded and

followed by semi-lozenge-shaped spots, which unite (or

4.4.0 Mr. T. H. Briggs on Zygena Trifoli.

nearly so) with those of the following and preceding seg-

ments ; the anterior spot terminates lower down the side

than the other; in the three segments immediately fol-

lowing the head, the dorsal line is so narrow and dusky

as to be hardly perceptible ; below which row of black

spots, a pale yellowish line on each side with a bright

yellow spot in the fold formed by the hind margin of

each segment, below which line a row of black spots on

each side, two on each segment confluent, or nearly so

in their lower extremities, when confluent, making to-

gether a spot of a horse-shoe shape, in which the spiracles

are placed, below which, and in the succeeding pale line,

are two black dots on each segment; one on the anterior,

one on the posterior fold, the anterior dot being placed

rather lower than the other, the space between this line

and the feet is nearly filled up with blackish and dusky

markings, some segments being more suffused than

others; pro-legs and underside pale, with a row of dusky

dots down the middle of the belly.

Described June, 1866, from a larva sent from Barnwell

Wold, which died ; supposed to be the Trifolii found there,

subsequently compared with two larve from Shotover

Hill, which agreed with this description, except in the

less confluency of the spots.

This larva seems as variable as Pilipendule, but with a

brighter and generally paler ground-colour.

Obs. M. Boisduval’s “petit point noir,” Mr. Hellin’s

« x -like black spots,” and Mr. Buckler’s “figures with

the lateral spots united,” all agree more or less with the

above description, and are in total opposition to the de-

scription of the caterpillar of the late T’rifoli.

( 441 )

XVIII. Remarks concerning the identification of Myrme-

leon formicaleo, formicarium, and formicalynx

of Linné. By Rosert McLacuuan, F.L.S.,

Sec. Ent. Soc.

[Read 20th November, 1871.}

I wave just received from Pastor Wallengren a most

valuable contribution to European Neuropterology, in the

form of the first part of his ‘‘ Skandinaviens Neuroptera”

(Kongl. Sv. Vet.-Ak. Handlingar, 1871), comprising the

Planipennia. Naturally the Scandinavian fauna is almost

identical with that of Britain; but Sweden possesses an

Ant-lion, which is amongst the things hoped for by us.

The name this Ant-lion should bear opens up an interest-

ing and involved question. The family Myrmeleonide is

tolerably rich in species in Southern Europe; but as we

approach the more central or northern portions of the

Continent, it may be said to have but two representa-

tives, and it is concerning these two that the following

notes are written. One of those has the wings spotted

with black or fuscous, the spots being less evident in

faded individuals, or in those recently developed: this

has been known under the name of formicarius by almost

_all European entomologists, out of Sweden, and is very

abundant in warm sandy spots in most parts of central

Europe, also occurring pretty generally in the south.

The other has perfectly immaculate wings (excepting a

whitish pterostigma): this, by modern Neuropterists, is

generally known, out of Sweden, by the name of fornu-

calynex (it is the innotatus of Rambur, according to the

type, and the nevtrwm of Fischer vy. Waldheim), and has

a more decided northern range, extending far into

Siberia, yet also occurring in Spain and southern Italy.

I make no mention of other characters, because the pre-

sence or absence of spots on the wings is enough for my

present purpose.

It is evident that, sooner or later, Linné confounded

those two distinct species as forms, or local varieties, of

one.*

In the first edition of the ‘ Fauna Suecica’ (1746), he

says, of an Ant-lion (without trivial name) “ alc obsolete

nebulose.”

* Cf. Villers, Linn. Ent. iii., pp. 59-60.

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1871.—PaRT IV. (DECEMBER.) ry

4,42 Mr. R. McLachlan on

In the tenth edition of the ‘Systema Naturze’ (1758),

we find an insect named Hemerobius formicaleo, still with

the word “ nebulosis” applied to the wings.

In the second edition of the ‘Fauna’ (1761), there is

again a Hemerohius formicaleo, but there is here no men-

tion of the nebulose or spotted wings; these members

are simply said to be ‘hyaline, venis fuscis reticulate.

Finally, in the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema’ (1767),

the name is changed to Myrmeleon formicarium, and there

is a very significant modification of the description, the

words now being “ale nostratis absque maculis fuscis,”

making it evident that the Swedish insect had immaculate

wings, whereas he had seen individuals from other quar-

ters with spotted wings, or, at any rate, was made ac-

quainted with such by the works of contemporary authors.

The modern Swedish entomologists* affirm that one

species only of Myrmeleon occurs in their country, that

with the immaculate wings, hence the formicarium of the

twelfth edition of the ‘Systema,’ and the formicaleo of

the second edition of the ‘ Fauna.’

Linné cites the works of Réaumur, Vallisnieri, Roesel,

Sulzer, Schiffer (‘Hlementa’), Poda, and Geoffroy, and

all these authors describe or figure the spotted-winged

species, excepting Schiiffer, who distinctly figures that

with immaculate wings.

How then did he come to describe the insect, as with

markings on the wings in his earlier works;? and this

question is more especially directed to the first edition of

the ‘Fauna.’ I hazard a conjecture. It is well known

that the perfect insects of Myrmeleon are rarely seen at

large in a state of nature, they being nocturnal in their

habits, concealing themselves adroitly during the day.

On the other hand the larvze, or rather the pit-falls made

by them, force themselves upon our attention. Hence I

consider it very probable that Linné, at the time of pub-

* Wallengren remarks, that he formerly (Ofv. Vet.-Ak. Forhand., 1863)

erroneously diagnosed the Swedish insect as with spotted wings, and that

Thomson made the same mistake.

+ In his private, interleaved, copy of the twelfth edition of the ‘ Sys-

tema’ (in the possession of the Linnean Society), Linné (in MS.) refers

the immaculatum of De Geer, as a synonym of formicariwm; and Wal-

lengren likewise includes the name among the synonymy given by him.

But De Geer’s insect is stated to be from Pennsylvania ; it is a recognisable,

and common, North American species (cf. Hagen, North American Sy-

nopsis. p. 231). Gmelin makes the name a synonym of formicalynw, and

adds ‘America’ as a habitat for that species.

Myrmeleon formicaleo, etc. 443

lication of his earlier works, knew of the existence of an

Ant-lion in Sweden from the larve only, considering

those to produce the insect made familiar to him by the

works of his contemporaries in other parts of Europe.

But, later, the Swedish species became known to him,

and he then amended his descriptions accordingly, em-

phasising his last by the word “ nostratis.”

There yet remains to be considered the species intended

by the name formicalynz. Linné, in the tenth edition of

the ‘Systema,’ simply characterises this by the words,

“alis immaculatis, hyalinis, antennis clavatis. Habitat in

Africa.’ In the twelfth edition, the word “ clavatis” is

altered, by an evident slip of the pen, to “ setaceis.’ No

mention of the species is made in either edition of the

‘Fauna.’ Notwithstanding its African habitat, he

refers to another figure in Roesel (tab. xxi. fig. 2),

which decidedly represents (from Germany) the Swedish

‘species described by him as formicarium.

The Linnean collection, in the possession of the Lin-

-nean Society of London, adds to the difficulty. The only

Ant-lion in that collection bearing a label in Linné’s

hand-writing is the plain-winged Swedish insect (there

are several specimens of it, all with the characteristic

Linnean pins, but only one bearing a label), and that

label is “ formicalyne”! I absolutely refuse, consider-

ing the African habitat given for formicalynz, and the

evidence of Swedish entomologists, to acknowledge this

specimen as typical. Before the collection was placed in

its present quarters, it was so maltreated by additions,

destructions, and misplacement of labels, as to render it

a matter of regret that it now exists at all.* Any evi-

dence it now furnishes is only trustworthy when con-

firmed by the descriptions. It is true that the few words

of diagnosis given for formicalyne will apply to this

insect so far as they go; but the African habitat of formi-

calyne, and the fact that the label-bearing insect is the

known Swedish species well described by Linné as for-

micarium, render it certain that this label has been

wrongly placed, after the destruction of the specimen

that originally bore it, which was probably one of the

many African species with immaculate hyaline wings,

now indeterminable.

* Cf. Staudinger, ‘Catalog der Lepidopteren des Europxischen Fau-

nengebiets,’ vorwort, pp. xvi-xvii., 1871.

112

4.44, Mr. R. McLachlan on Myrmeleon.

Tf, therefore, our system of nomenclature be limited to

the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema, as is the custom

with many naturalists, the familiar spotted-winged Ant-

lion, usually known as formicarius, is in the position of

being nameless; but as this species was evidently that

intended by the diagnosis in the tenth edition, with the

name formicaleo, we may very justly retain both names,

and the species and their synonymy will now stand as

follows :—

1. Formtcatzo, Linné, Syst. Nat. ed.x.; Poda.

Formicarius (Vallisnieri; Réaumur, Geoffroy ; Roesel,

tab. xvii.-xx.; Sulzer*), Fabricius; Olivier; Panzer;

Latreille; Stephens; Rambur; Westwood; Burmeister ;

Brauer ; Hagen; McLachlan, olim.; etc. (nec Linné, Syst.

Nat. ed. xii.).

2. Formicartus (um.), Linné, Syst. Nat. ed. xii.

(Schiffer, ‘Elementa’ et ‘Icones’; ft Roesel, tab. xxi. fig.

2); Dahlbom; J. B. Fischer ; Wallengren.

Formicaleo, Linné, Faun. Suec. ed. ii. (nec Syst. Nat.,

ed. x.); O. F. Miller.

Formicalynx, Burmeister; Hagen; Brauer; McLachlan,

olim (nec Linné).

Innotatus, Rambur ; Costa.

Neutrum, Fischer v. Waldheim.

[3. Formicatynx, Linné, Syst. Nat. ed. x., et ed. xii.

(Species Africana, indeterminata). |

I have already stated that no species of Ant-lion has

been detected in the British Isles: t and I do not believe

that such insects exist here, But if my views in this re-

spect should ultimately prove to be erroneous, it may be

that, mstead of the spotted-winged species (formicaleo) ,

its plainer congener (formicarius) , of Swedish notoriety,

will assert its claim to a place in our lists.

* Those authors whose names are included within the brackets, apply

no trivial names to their insects.

The figures in Vallisnieri’s ‘Opera’ (1733) are of extreme coarseness,

and, in some of them, intentional caricatures of the human face, or figure

are introduced, a practice not confined to him only among the earlier au-

thors. The figures of the magnified larve are good.

+ Hagen (Stettiner ent. Zeit., 1866, p. 439) refers the figure in Schaf-

fer’s ‘ Elementa’ to No. 2, and those in the ‘Icones’ to No. 1. In both

works the species represented is No. 2 (formicarius).

{¢ The spotted-winged species has been erroneously recorded as British,

by Barbut.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON

FOR THE YEAR

Loa.

6 February, 1871.

A. R. Wattace, Esq., F.Z.S., President, in the chair.

The President nominated Prof. Westwood and Messrs. J. W. Dunning

and H. T. Stainton as Vice-Presidents.

Donations to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Remarks on Synonyms of European Spiders,’ No. 1; ‘ Aranew

nonnulle Nove Hollandiz descripte;’ presented by the Author, T.

Thorell. ‘Lepidoptera Exotica,’ Part vii.; by E. W. Janson. ‘ The Gall

Midge of the Ash’ (Cecidomyia Botularia, Winnerz); by the Author,

Albert Miller. ‘Silk Supply Journal,’ No. 9; by the Silk Supply

‘The Zoologist’ for February; by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s

Monthly Magazine’ for February; by the Editors.

Election of Member.

Pastor J. H. Kawall, of Pussen, Kurland, was ballotted for, and elected

a Corresponding Member.

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. Bond exhibited several species of Lepidoptera taken in Perthshire,

last season, by Mr. Eedle, viz. Pachnobia alpina, being the third known

British example; a fine variety of Larentia cesiata; a very dark form of

Thera juniperata, being its ordinary condition in that district, and remark-

able also for the time of its appearance, which was nearly two months

earlier than in England; Gelechia boreella; and finally Hyponomeuta

evonymella, L. (padi, Zeller), the larva of which Mr. Kedle had observed to

cover the trees of bird-cherry with its webs to a remarkable extent,—a piece

of web exhibited was a yard long.

Mr. Bond also exhibited an example of Vanessa Atalanta, bred by

Mr. Jackson, which still retained the larval head.

Prof. Westwood said that this form of monstrosity was very rare. He

could call to mind only four recorded imstances: (1) Nymphalis populi,

(2) Gastropacha quercifolia and (8) Dytiscus marginalis in the British

Museum, and (4) a Syrphus in the Oxford Museum.

Mr. Bond laid before the Meeting some beautifully executed photographs

of the eggs of bird parasites, taken from microscopic slides, prepared by

Mr. Norman, of 178, City Road.

Mr. Miller exhibited several galls, collected by Mr. Trovey Blackmore

in Morocco, as follows :—

Firstly. On the cork tree (Quercus suber), a monothalamous, ioraeert

bullet gall, standing on a peduncle of an inch in length, emanating from a

thin twig: colour dark gray, with irregular fuscous veins; surface rough,

greatest diameter 15 mill. Undoubtedly the home of a true Cynips.

Mr. Blackmore informs me that he “cut it from a cork tree, near Cape

Spartel: many others were on the same tree.”

Secondly. On an undetermined species of oak (Quercus ?); on the

under side of a leaf, and attached to the lateral ribs. .4.—Monothalamous,

pea-shaped, flattened galls: ground colour mahogany-brown, irregularly

sprinkled all over with small darker spots, some of which are reddish and

ocellate, with a pale dot in the centre; surface more or less polished and

shining (four specimens); size variable; greatest diameter of the largest

specimen 15 mill.; of the smallest 6 mill. These galls show great affinity

_ to those of Cynips agama, Hartig. .—Deeply wrinkled, flat, brownish

spangles seated right across the lateral ribs; greatest diameter 5 mill. If

not a very immature stage of the gall A, these spangles may belong to a

Neuroterus. Mr. Blackmore observes of A and B that “ he remembers

obtaining them all from one oak tree in the Gibel-el-Kebir, a small

mountain near Tangier, either in March or April.”

The Rev. H. §. Gorham exhibited a beetle new to the British list,

concerning which he made the following remarks :—

* Oxytelus fulvipes, Erichs. Kafer der Mark B. 590; Genera et species

Staph. 787; Kraatz Naturg. der Ins. Deuts. 11. 852. Of the indigenous

species most allied to O. rugosus, F’ab., from which it differs as follows :—

The head, thorax and elytra are much less closely punctured, especially the

former, which also lacks the depression of the clypeus, conspicuous in

rugosus; this part also being shining instead of opaque. The thorax is

proportionally shorter and more narrowed towards the base; the lateral

iil

margins obsoletely crenulate. The legs and first four joints of the antenna

are testaceous; these joints, however, in my specimens are spotted with

pitchy. ‘The third joint is shorter than the second; whereas the reverse is

the case in rugosus. In the male characters beneath, this species presents

considerable differences,—the fifth segment being simple (in rugosus the

margin bears a conspicuous tubercle), and the seventh has the margin

simply bisinuate. One male and three female specimens, found by myself,

near a wet spot in a wood, near Needwood, Staffordshire, January, 1870. It

is found also in Germany, Austria and France.”

Prof. Westwood exhibited drawings of a species of Coccus, infesting

Cypripedium niveum, from Siam. These Cocci were situated on the under

side of the leaves in groups of four or five, or more. The body of the scale

was very small, apparently composed of waxy exudation; on the surface

were six raised radiating white lines, corresponding to the legs of the

insect, and each of these raised lines was produced into a spine-like process

extending beyond the margins of the scale; beneath there was an oval

receptacle, which contained the pupa or perfect insect, but always of the

male sex. On the under side the mid-rib of the same leaves were

differently formed, and not stellate scales, which probably were those of the

female. Some of the first-described scales were altered in form, the raised

lines being obliterated, and the surface swollen: these he considered to be

infested with parasites. He proposed to name the insect Coccus stellifer.

Mr. Stainton remarked that at a recent Meeting of the Scientific

Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society there were exhibited samples

of lemons, from Palermo, infested with a Coccus distinct from that which

ordinarily affects the orange. The rind immediately around the scales

never acquired the yellow colour, so that the lemons appeared to be

sprinkled with green spots. The presence of these Cocci was of consider-

able importance, inasmuch as it rendered the fruit useless for preserving

purposes.

Prof. Westwood further exhibited a minute species of Corixa, destructive

to the ova of fishes in India, received from Mr. H. 8. Thomas, respecting

which that gentleman made the following remarks :— ;

“‘Tts habitat is fresh water in the rivers of Canara, though, I dare say, it

may also be found in other rivers of the Madras Presidency. I observed it

myself in a still hollow in a rock, where the water was quite clear, and only

two or three inches in depth. The insects kept tossing the ova up from the

bottom, and following them closely up to the surface, whence they gradually

subsided to the bottom by their own weight, the insects apparently adhering

to the eggs all the time; but the moment they were at the bottom they

were vigorously tossed up again. I daresay it attacks other spawn also; but

the ova I saw it engaged with were those of the ‘ Masheer barbas mosal,’

commonly called ‘ Masheer,’ the most valuable fish in the Indian rivers.”

Mr. Thomas sent also an extract from the report of Pisciculture in

South Canara, detailing experiments made by an intelligent observer to

test the destructive habits of the insect. In one instance a hollow was

watched, in which were many freshly deposited ova, but no Corixe. The

next morning the latter were there in large numbers, and nothing left but

the empty egg-shells. In another experiment the ova were placed in a

finely woven basket, and the Corixee immediately came in quantities and

endeavoured to penetrate from the outside. ‘This insect, which is deposited

in the British Museum in accordance with Mr. Thomas’s request, Prof.

Westwood characterized as under :—

“ CorIxA oyrvorna, sp.n. Minuta, supra griseo-fusca, infra (cum pedibus)

pallide lutea; capite lutescente; hemelytris griseo-fuscis, apicibus paullo

pallidioribus, margine antico lineis nonnullis punctoque apicem versus

nigris, notato; femoribus intermediis longis, tibiisque gracillimis; metasterno

profunde bisinuato, angulis posticis lateralibus elongatis. Long. corp.

lin. 14; exp. hemelytr. lin. 2}. Habitat in fluviis India orientalis copiose,

ova piscium devorans” (Dom. H. S. Thomas).

Paper read.

“Description of a new genus, and of six new species of Pierins,” by

Mr. A. G. Butler.

The new species were described as Ixias venatus, from the White

Nile; Kricogonia fantasia, from Nicaragua; Callidryas fornax, from Chili;

poda (n.g.) lycenoides, from West Africa,—this latter form seemed, in

some respects, intermediate between the Eronia group of Pierine and

the genus Deloneura among the Lycienide, according to Mr. Butler.

20 February, 1871.

A. R. Wattace, Esq., President, in the chair.

Exhibitions, de.

Mr. Bond exhibited a hybrid between a male Bombyx Pernyi and a

female B. Yamamai, bred by Dr. Wallace. In colour it more resembled

that of its male, in shape that of its female, parent. He also exhibited a

crippled example of Bombyx Mori, likewise bred by Dr. Wallace, still

retaining the larval head.

Mr. M‘Lachlan called attention to what was, in all probability, the first

record of a similar arrest of development, viz. a paper in ‘Der Natur-

forscher’ for 1781, by O, F. Miiller, intituled, “ Entdeckung eines

¥;

Schmetterlings mit einem Raupenkopfe,” and which related to a female

example of Hypogymna dispar.

Mr. F. Smith mentioned that Prof. Owen had narrated to him how the

hieroglyphic inscriptions on the ancient monuments in Egypt are obliterated

by being filled in with mud composed of fine sand used by a common Egyp-

tian wasp, Rhynchium brunneum, in forming its nests. And in connection

with this subject he exhibited an example of the same wasp, which had been

found by Dr. Birch when unrolling a mummy, there being every reason to

believe that the insect had remained in the position in which it was found,

ever since the last rites were paid to the ancient Egyptian.

Mr. Smith further mentioned that he had recently discovered a passage

in ‘ Pepys’s Diary,’ which was, probably, the earliest record of the use of

observatory bee-hives. The passage runs thus :—‘‘ May 5, 1665. After

dinner to Mr. Evelyn’s; he being abroad we walked in his garden, anda

lovely and noble ground he hath: and among other rarities, a hive of bees

' which, being hived in glass, you may see the bees making their honey and

combs mighty pleasantly.”

Papers read.

Mr. Miller read a paper on the “ Dispersal of Non-migratory Insects by

Atmospheric Agencies,” in which he had collected together many records in

support of his opinion that various atmospheric phcenomena played a con-

siderable part in the wide dispersal of insects, and explained many points

connected with their present geographical distribution.

In the discussion which followed, the President said he was quite of

opinion that currents of air were the chief agencies in the peopling of

oceanic islands with the smaller forms of animal life; though, no doubt,

floating timber had the same effect, but in a lesser degree.

Mr. Bates and Mr. Pascoe asked how it was that the Coleopterous fauna

of the opposite sides of high mountains, and mountain-chains, presented

such marked differences, if their insect-inhabitants were liable to be carried

over the summits by atmospheric agencies? And Mr. F. Smith, Mr.

Pascoe, and Mr. M‘Lachlan remarked on the extreme difficulty of natu-

ralising insects in localities which apparently present no important

climatic differences from those in which the species experimented upon

are abundant.

Mr. Miiller, agreeing with the suggestion thrown out by several members,

explained this by the hypothesis, that though many individuals are dispersed

in the manner he indicated, yet, owing to causes difficult to comprehend,

the strangers are unable to cope with the pre-existing denizens of the

locality, and thus only very few are able to maintain their position, and

most of these die out before they are able to give birth to new varieties or

incipient species.

Mr. Bates said that this explanation quite accorded with his own views

on the subject.

Mr. Smith enquired the exact meaning attached to the terms “ migratory”

and ‘‘non-migratory,” as applied to insects, in connection with Mr. Miller’s

paper.

Mr. Stainton suggested that in the one case the insects might be

considered free agents, whereas, in the other, compulsion was necessary to

force them from their customary habitats. But it was remarked that the

terms were ill chosen, inasmuch as migration, in the sense in which the

term is applied to birds, does not exist with insects, much of the so-called

migration of these being dependent upon the supply of food being insufficient

to satisfy the wants of vast hordes of a particular species; this, in some

cases, as in the locusts, being the normal condition, rendering them habitual

wanderers, whereas, in others, it was of only occasional occurrence.

Mr. H. Jenner-Fust communicated a supplement to his paper “ On the

Distribution of Lepidoptera in Great Britain and Ireland.”

New Part of ‘ Transactions.’

Part 5 of the ‘ Transactions’ for 1870 was on the table.

6 March, 1871.

A. R. Watuace, Esq., President, in the chair.

Donations to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ No. 125; presented by the

Society. ‘Bullettino della Societa Hntomologica Italiana,’ anno secondo,

trim. iv.; by the Society. ‘The Journal of the Linnean Society,’ Zoology,

No. 50; by the Society. ‘The Journal of the Quekett Microscopical

Club,’ No. 18; by the Club. ‘The Canadian Entomologist,’ vol. ii,

Nos. 10 and 11; by the Editor. ‘Species of the genus Buprestis of

Linneus, described previous to 1830;’ by the Author, Edward Saunders,

Esq., F.L.S. ‘ Considérations sur la classification et la distribution

géographique de la famille des Cicindélites,’ par A. Preadhomme de Borre ;

by the Author. ‘Synopsis Coleopterorum Europe et confinium,’ anno

1868, descriptorum, Auctore G. R. Crotch, M.A.; by the Author. ‘The

Spangle of the Mango leaf,’ by Albert Miller; by the Author. ‘The

Zoologist’ for March; by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s Monthly

Magazine’ for March; by the Editors.

Vil

Election of Members.

The following gentlemen were ballotted for, and elected :—Baron E. de

Selys-Longchamps, as Honorary Member; the Rey. T. A. Preston, M.A.

(formerly a Subscriber), as Ordinary Member; and G. C. Champion, Esq.,

as Annual Subscriber.

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. Jenner Weir exhibited a small collection of butterflies, taken by Mr.

Poole, in Madagascar.

Mr. I’. Smith exhibited portions of two small branches of ash, from

which the bark had been neatly removed all round. He had received them

from the Rey. J. Hellins, of Exeter, accompanied by a note, in which Mr.

Hellins stated that, one day last summer, he had observed a hornet busily

engaged in removing the bark from these branches. Mr. Smith could not

believe that the hornet was providing building-materials for its nest, as he

had invariably found this to be composed of friable paper, apparently formed

from dead or decayed wood. Upon referring to Reaumur’s ‘ Memoires,’ he

found that that keen observer had recorded a precisely similar circumstance,

and he, Mr. Smith, was inclined to think the imsect was endeavouring to

extract the sap, from the inner wood, as food.

Mr. Smith further called the attention of the Meeting to a letter from

the Marquis Spinola, published in the ‘Revue Zoologique’ for 1844

(p. 240), in which the writer maintained his belief in the luminosity

of Fulgora, stating that M. Katfer, who accompanied Prince Eugéne

de Carignan on his voyage, had observed, at Santos, in Brazil, a very large

Fulgora emitting a brilliant light. On the strength of this and other

statements, especially that of Baron Ransonnet respecting a Chinese

species, Mr. Smith was quite of the opinion that Fulgora is luminious, at

any rate occasionally, notwithstanding all that had been said and written to

the contrary.

Mr. Dunning exhibited a parasite, which he had recently taken from a

peacock. This was evidently the Pediculus pavonis of Linné and the older

authors; but, by all recent writers on these insects, it was termed

Goniodes falcicornis of Nitzsch; and Nitzsch, in Germar’s ‘ Zeitschrift,’

actually gave Linné’s name as a synonym, for what reason he knew not.

Mr. Lewis exhibited examples of antennal malformation in Lepidoptera,

comprising (1) a specimen of Melita Cinxia, in which the apical half of

one antenna was aborted; (2) Cymatophora diluta, with one antenna

congenitally wanting; and (3) Scopelosoma satellitia in the same condition,

and, in this specimen, the corresponding eye was enveloped in a cuticle. He

also exhibited Meliteea Cinxia, with malformed hind wings.

Mr. Butler exhibited examples of Ccenonympha Satyrion from the

opposite sides of the Gemmi. These individuals showed marked variation,

vlll

and he thought it probable they represented the ordinary condition of the

species on either side of that mountain-pass.

Mr. Albert Miller communicated the following notes on a Cecidomyia,

causing galls upon Campanula rotundifolia :—

“Mr. James W. H. Traill, of Old Aberdeen, has sent to me several

specimens of Campanula rotundifolia, Linné, gathered by him in August

last on exposed braes, two or three miles to the north of that city,

which specimens are infested by the larve of a Cecidomyia. They occur

both in the seed-vessels and in green, small, globular, monothalamous

axillary galls, developed from buds. On some shoots almost every bud is

appropriated by the gall, and one specimen presents a terminal cluster of

them. Mr. Traill has suggested to me that the galls are, probably,

abortive flower-buds, and I am inclined to concur in his opinion, owing to

the presence of the larvee in the seed capsules as well. One of the latter

disclosed an immense number of unripe seeds, each one tenanted by the

very young oval larva, the smallest quite white; older ones 1 millim. in

length, flattened, the centre of the body longitudinally purple-red, the

remaining parts almost transparent. At this stage the larvee looked very

pretty in the seeds, of which they had consumed the contents, presenting

the appearance of living rubies, cased in flat capsules of transparent horn.

Adult Jarve—taken singly from the galls, and in number from the seed

capsules—were 3 millim. in length, 14-jointed, elongated, reddish, with

darker intestine; their first segment very slender, beak-like. In the full

grown state they were lively ; but in the earlier stages they appeared rather

sluggish. I regret that mildew killed the whole brood; but I hope, with

Mr. Traill’s kind assistance, to rear the perfect insect this season. In the

meantime I propose for it the name of C. Campanule, as its peculiar mode

of life warrants my considering it a new species, distinct from all those

whose economy is known to me.”

Papers read, dc.

Dr. Sharp communicated “ Notes on some British species of Oxypoda.”

After remarking upon the extreme state of confusion that existed respecting

the species of this genus, Dr. Sharp proceeded to critical notes upon most of

the previously recorded British species, and described four as probably new

to science, viz. O. petita, hitherto confused with O. cunicularia, Hr.,

generally distributed in England and Scotland; O. edinensis, from near

Edinburgh; O. verecunda, from near London and in the fens; and

O. tarda, from salt-marshes near Dumfries.

Mr. Lowne (who was present as a visitor) read, “ Observations on

immature sexuality and alternate generation in insects.” The author

thought that species originated occasionally from the maturity of the sexual

organs before the acquirement of the adult characters. He had been

induced to believe that such is the case, from the early period at which the

sexual organs first make their appearance in the embryo and larva, from the

fact that some larvee have been taken in copula, and from an analogous

phcenomenon which had been observed among the Echinodermata. In the

course of the paper he had occasion to enter largely into details of correlation

of development between the cutaneous and sexual organs in insects. He

stated his belief that such correlations often gave rise to secondary sexual

characters. The paper concluded with a comparison between acquired and

direct larval forms. The author thought the larva and pupa of insects were

probably all acquired, and not direct, stages of development.

With reference to Mr. Lowne’s remarks on the early development of the

sexual organs in insects, and with a view of disproving a not uncommon

idea that the sex is determined by the supply of food (or its quality)

furnished to the larva, Mr. Briggs detailed some experiments he had

made. A number of larve of Liparis dispar were separated into two

divisions, about sixty in each. One lot were fed upon hawthorn, the other

upon elm. In the elm-fed larvee the imagos produced were about equal as to

sex, but there were only two perfect females; the males of the ordinary size.

Tn those fed upon whitethorn, the sexes were again about equal in number,

but the males were much smaller and paler, whereas the females were much

finer, and scarcely any of them imperfect. Again, with a view of determining

whether any truth exists in the statements of old authors that larve differ

in colour according to sex, Mr. Briggs experimented upon two forms of the

larva of Trichiura crategi; one form being ringed, somewhat like the larva

of Bombyx rubi; the other mottled. These forms were figured by Hiitbner

as of different sexes; but the first-named seemed to be dying out, and was

described by none of the more recent writers. From a batch of eggs, Mr.

Briggs obtained about thirty larve of each form: firstly, a male imago,

produced from a larva of the ringed form, was paired with a female of the

mottled form; secondly, these conditions were reversed; thirdly and

fourthly, each form was paired with its like. From these four experiments

in no one instance was the ringed form of larva obtained; and it did not

reappear after breeding in to the third generation.

20 March, 1871.

A. R. Wattace, Esq., President, in the chair.

Election of Members. —

Prof. P. M. Duncan, M.D., F.R.S., &c., and Ernest S$. Charlton, Esq.,

were ballotted for, and elected Members of the Society.

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. Dunning read the following letter received from the Rey. L. Jenyns,

of Belmont, Bath :—

“T see in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society (Part v. 1870,

p- xxxiv.) notice of a communication, made at the Meeting of the 7th of

November, respecting large swarms of flies, referred to Chlorops lineata,

which had appeared in September in a room in the Provost's Lodge at

King’s College, Cambridge. It may be worth drawing the attention of the

Society to the circumstance of the same phenomenon having occurred,

probably in the same room, in 1831, thirty-nme years ago, where it was

witnessed by myself, the late Provost, Dr. Thackeray, having invited me to

come in and see it. Of that phenomenon I published a full account at the

time in Loudon’s ‘ Magazine of Natural History’ (vol. v. p. 302), and it was

afterwards reprinted in my ‘Observations in Natural History’ (p. 275),

published in 1846.

“In reference to the occurrence of this fly in King’s College Lodge in

September last, Prof. Westwood ‘ thought it was with a view to hybernation.’

This in itself seems not improbable; but the remarkable thing is, in this

case, that the same house, if not the same room, should have been selected

by this species of insect for the above purpose over a period of nearly forty

years, during which time there must have been a succession of many

generations. On the occasion of the swarms in 1831, it was about the 17th

of September, so far as could be remembered, that these insects first

showed themselves; and it was thought that they had entered the room

very early in the morning, by a window looking due north, which had been

open during part of the night, having been first observed between 8 and

9 a.m. For further particulars I would refer those who are interested in

the matter to my original notice of the phcenomenon.”

Mr. Miller made some observations on the varieties of Ccoenonympha

Satyrion, from the Gemmi, exhibited by Mr. Butler at the last Meeting.

He had compared the specimens with those taken by himself in other parts

of Switzerland, and with the descriptions given by Swiss authors, and found

the species showed a considerable general tendency to variation.

Mr. Verrall exhibited a dipterous insect, Pipiza noctiluca, taken by him-

self at Rannoch, to the head of which was adhering a foreign substance,

apparently a fungoid growth. Several members dissented from this

explanation of the nature of the substance in question, and thought it was

probably the pollen-mass of an orchid.

Mr. Miller exhibited a gall on a species of Carex, concerning which he

read the following notes :—

“The present Lord Walsingham kindly sent to me, in the middle of

September last, a growing plant of an undetermined species of Carex,

collected near Thetford, in Norfolk, pointing out to me at the same time

some curious galls on its leaves. They may be described as oblong, of the

size of a grain of wheat, and as attached longitudinally to the blades of the

Carex, sometimes in groups. When fresh they were of a paler green

than the plant itself; in their present dry state they are coffee-brown,

and remind one vividly, by size and colour, of the brown cocoons of certain

Nemati. But this resemblance is only superficial; they form part and

parcel of the plant, and derive, in their fresh state, their sap direct from

its tissues. They are monothalamous. I potted the plant immediately on

arrival, but notwithstanding my constant attention I have failed to rear the

maker of these excrescences, so I record my observations so far, in the hope

that other naturalists will be luckier than myself.”

Papers read, de.

Mr. C. O. Waterhouse communicated a paper ‘‘On a new genus and

species of Lucanide (Apterocyclus honoluluensis) from the Sandwich

Islands.”

Mr. Wollaston communicated a memoir “ On additions to the Atlantic

Coleoptera.” In this paper he recorded the additions to the combined fauna

of the Madeiras, Salvages and Canaries, noticed since the publication of

his ‘Coleoptera Atlantidum’ in 1865. The new species were thirty-three

in number, but he had expunged two species from the list, leaving the total

number at 1480, as against 1449 in 1865; sixteen of the additions he

described as probably new to Science. The total number of species were

distributed thus :—Madeiras 694, Salvages 27, Canaries 1013. Mr. Wol-

laston proceeded further to notice certain changes in nomenclature that had

become necessary; and alluded to the discoveries of Mr. Godman in the

Azores, which, according to the list published by Mr. Crotch, seemed to

affiliate this group with the more southern Atlantic archipelagos. The

introductory portion of the paper terminated with an examination of the

origin of the beetle-fauna of these islands, according to the theories of

Mr. Murray, as enunciated in his treatise ‘On the geographical relations of

the chief Coleopterous Faune,’ and of Mr. Wallace, as explained in his

recent presidential Address. From observations made in situ, establishing

a remarkably homogeneity of character in the fauna of the several groups,

up to a certain nucleus, and then diminishing towards the south, Mr. Wol-

laston adhered to his original idea of a former land-connection between the

groups, afterwards broken by some gigantic catastrophe; and in this

respect he favoured the views of Mr. Murray more than those of Mr.

Wallace, who contended that the insect-population had been chiefly

influenced by atmospheric phenomena, such as storms and hurricanes. He

remarked, in support of his opinion, that storms were of very rare occurrence

in that part of the Atlantic, the wind blowing as a moderate breeze almost

uninterruptedly from the north-east, with an occasional storm from the

south; and he was willing to admit that these storms might possibly

account for the slight African element in the fauna; but the large number

of Mediterranean types could not, in his opinion, have originated from

atmospheric causes. Floating timber, and human agency, especially the

introduction of plants from Europe, and from one island into another, no

doubt played a not inconsiderable part both in the character of the fauna as

a whole and in its details.

A lengthened discussion followed the reading of this paper, in which the

President, Mr. Bates and Mr. Murray, who was present as a visitor, took

part.

Mr. Bates considered that Mr. Wollaston had adduced no new facts

calculated to convert those who do not believe that the present community

of species in these islands is to be explained by former land-connection,

inter se, and with south-western Europe. Mr. Wollaston had not endea-

voured to meet the objection to his theory, raised by Sir C. Lyell in his

‘Principles of Geology,’ viz., that the Atlantic Islands, and especially the

Azores, are separated from the continent of Europe by a sea of from 10,000

to 15,000 feet in depth. It was pretty generally acknowledged that all

great geological changes were extremely slow in their operation, and this

being the case, a land-depression of that magnitude must have occupied a

length of time that could only be measured by geological epochs; in fact,

would throw back the operation to a period probably prior to the origin of

the now existing insect fauna of the islands. It was not in accordance with

the present state of Science to call to our aid the idea of “ great catas-

trophes,” or if that course be adopted, we should be prepared with facts

in support of the theory.

Mr. Murray agreed with Mr. Bates with regard to his remarks on “ great

catastrophes,” and thought Mr. Wollaston in that respect had chosen a

wrong position; but he did not agree with him in his estimate of the length

of time necessary for the operation of great geological changes. Fossil

shells, &c., from Solenhofen were referrible to recent genera, and Prof.

Heer had identified the fossil plants of the miocene of Madeira with genera

now existing there. Furthermore, it was known that Cardium edule was

found in a fossil state in the Aralo-Caspian region and in the Sahara, and

he thought the elevation demonstrated by this fact was not opposed to the

idea of a corresponding depression in the Atlantic. The great objection to

his mind, to the theory of population by atmospheric means, was the

remarkable homogeneity of form in the fauna of the various groups. If the

fauna were derived from atmospheric agencies there would not be this

community of form. As a proof of this he would cite Keeling Island,

which has an insect-fauna of nineteen species, belonging to almost as many

orders,

xiii

Mr. Bates could not consider the argument of the existence of Cardium

edule in the Aralo-Caspian basin as of much weight, it not proving the

operation of great elevation within a comparatively recent period, the district

in question being still eighty-three feet below the sea-level.

The President said it was impossible with him to overcome the geological

difficulty in the way of a supposed former land-connection; for though he

could readily believe in great elevation or depression, either continuous or

alternate, yet it was a generally received opinion that the great depths

between these islands and the continent of Europe had existed since the

secondary period. The example of Keeling Island, as noticed by Mr.

Murray, was of little importance, because, being a coral island, it was

of very recent date, and, as there was little variety of vegetation, it was

impossible for the insects to show great increase; but, let the island become

more elevated, and its flora more varied, then its few involuntary insect

immigrants would each become the nucleus of a group of generic forms.

Mr. Murray had not explained the greatest objection to Mr. Wollaston’s

theory, the wonderful absence in the Atlantic Islands of indigenous mammals

and reptiles, which, if the islands be the remnants of a once-existing

continent, ought certainly to be represented; neither did he account for

the absence of the apterous groups of bulky Huropean heteromerous

beetles, such as Pimelia, &c., an absence the more remarkable in the

face of the fact that genera, and even species, of other families, become

apterous in the islands, though they are winged in Europe.

In connection with the absence of mammals, Mr. Bates alluded to the

almost total want of coprophagous beetles, a group very numerous in species

in those parts of Europe that approach nearest to the Atlantic islands.

3 April, 1871.

A. R. Waxuace, Esq., President, in the chair.

Donations to the Labrary.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ No. 126; presented by the

Society. ‘The Zoologist’ for April; by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s

Monthly Magazine’ for April; by the Editors. ‘Report of the Fruit-

growers’ Association of Ontario for the year 1870;’ by the Association.

‘Exotic Butterflies,’ part .78; by W. W. Saunders, Esq. ‘ Lepidoptera

Exotica,’ part viii.; by Mr. Janson. ‘ Die Alpenkafer und die Niszeit,’ by

P. V. Gredler; by Mr. Miller.

X1V

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. F. Smith exhibited examples of gynandromorphism in Aculeate

Hymenoptera, and read the following notes :—

“1, In 1836 I took Anthophora acervorum, in the month of April, at

Barnes, Surrey. In this example the male characters are very conspicuous,

and are all situated on the left side, most conspicuously so in the head,

thorax and legs. This specimen is figured in the ‘ Zoologist,’ vol. iii., and

also in my book on British Bees.

«2. A second example of Anthophora acervorum is in the collection of

the late Mr. Walcott, of Bristol; but the sexual peculiarities of structure

are much less apparent than in that exhibited.

«3, Andrena thoracica. In this specimen the male characters are on

the right side, and are observable in the antenne, head and legs.

«4, Nomada baccata. In this specimen the male characters are found

to be on the left side; the head is about equally divided sexually; the

antenne having in the male sex the front side white, and also a white line

at the inner margin of the eye, and the face covered with silvery hair; the

male mandible is longer and pointed at the tip; in the female it is blunt.

The thorax is coloured as in the female. The abdomen exhibits a strange

peculiarity; the apical segment above is blunt, as in all the females of the

genus, whilst beneath it is acute; there are the usual six segments above,

beneath there are seven. Taken at Weybridge in 1845.

«5, Apis mellifica. A monstrosity, partly male, partly worker. Antenne

worker on both sides; eyes worker; left anterior leg male; the right inter-

mediate leg and also the posterior one male; the abdomen has the silky

gloss of a male, and is in form partly so, being more blunt at the apex: the

male organ of generation is partly protruded. This specimen was sent to

me by Mr. Woodbury, of Exeter.”

Mr. W. A. Lewis called attention to the ravages reputed to be occasioned

to books by Lepisma saccharina, with reference to Mr. Quaritch’s statement

made before the Society at the Meeting held on the 3rd of January, 1870.

Although it was acknowledged that Lepisma damaged books by eating the

paste of the bindings, thus causing them to fall to pieces, yet it had been

considered impossible for it to bore holes in the books, as stated by

Mr. Quaritch, such ravages being considered due to Anobium. However,

upon referring to Dr. Packard’s ‘ Guide to the Study of Insects,’ Mr. Lewis

found that the author (p. 623) endorsed the opinion that Lepisma is a

Mr. Horne alluded to the damage done to silk garments in India

by Lepisma; the insect evidently attacking the silks on account of

the stiffening matters in them, but, nevertheless, making holes in the

fabric.

The Secretary exhibited a number of beautiful coloured figures of Chinese

Lepidoptera, executed by Mr. E. Holdsworth, of Shanghai.

Papers read, &c.

Mr. W. A. Lewis read a paper on the order of the groups of the Macro-

Lepidoptera. He criticised and condemned the arrangement introduced by

Mr. Doubleday’s List of 1859, and accompanied the statement of his views

with a variety of comments on the modern works dealing with his subject,

particularly Dr. Knaggs’ ‘ Cabinet List of Lepidoptera’ and Mr. Newman’s

‘Natural History of British Moths.’

The paper first stated the order of arrangement by different authors from

Linneus to the present day, the conclusion arrived at being that the

Linnean order was followed almost without deviation by every author down

to the year 1859; also that the Linnean names of the different groups

were adopted very generally until the same date. Mr. Lewis remarked that

since 1859 we in England had been subjected to the discomfort of having

two rival systems of arrangement, the followers of neither of which take the

smallest recognition of the other. He noticed severally the groups of

Doubleday’s List, and stated, successively, reasons against the acceptance

of the names Diurni, Nocturni, Drepanule and Pseudo-Bombyces; con-

tending, in effect, that, in the case of the two first-named groups, the new

names were, from their history, inapplicable; and as to the others, that

both divisions had prior names. He also objected to the name “ Pseudo-

Bombyces,” on the further ground that the scheme of classification of

which that group forms part does not acknowledge a group ‘“ Bombyces,”

and therefore a group “ Pseudo-Bombyces,” in the same scheme, is a

solecism. ;

“Mr. Lewis expressed his belief that the existence of the group Pseudo-

Bombyces was entirely owing to the necessity, in M. Guenée’s view, of

maintaining the order of the Noctuze which he, and other authors, had

observed. To do this it was necessary to place them in the old position

next after some Bombyciform genera, as the group had been arranged to

“face towards” Bombyx. Mr. Lewis contended that the course followed

was empirical, and was, besides, a failure, because the order of the Noctuz

still led one to expect the Geometre at the end of the group. He con-

tended, also, that the division of Bombyx had become a necessity when

M. Guenée determined to place Geometra next to Bombyx without

re-arranging Noctua, and that the part of Bombyx separated was then

never in doubt, since Platypteryx (as everyone had remarked since

Linneus) would easily join the Geometre and Cerure. He showed that

M. Guenée had (in 1852) admitted that in order to give effect to the

affinity of Geometra to Bombyx, it would be necessary to re-arrange

Noctua, and in his plan, then proposed, made no suggestion that it would

be necessary to divide Bombyx. Mr. Lewis also gave a variety of reasons

against the new order.

He also mentioned that some of the species now grouped as “ Pseudo”-

Bombyces had, by Latreille, been denominated ‘ Bombycites Legitime,”

and some by Hiibner ‘ Bombyces vere”; that the twenty-seven species

now separated from the Bombyces by the whole of the Geometre were, by

Westwood and other writers, considered so closely akin to the “true”

Bombyces that they were included in the family Arctiide; and that the

Linnean order, from which the order of 1859 showed so great a departure,

had received illustrations of its propriety in the nomenclature adopted by

Denis and Schiffermiller, by Hiibner, Horsfield, Boisduval, and many

others, viz. Noctuo-Bombycide, &c., Semi-Geometre, &c., Semi-Noctuales, &e.

Mr. Lewis then expressed his opinion that, considering the concord among

first-rate entomologists in favour of the Linnean order, the introduction of

the new arrangement “sub silentio in a mere labelling list” was “an

affront to Science.”

Considering recent publications, Mr. Lewis showed that Dr. Knaggs (in

his ‘Cabinet List of Lepidoptera’) had failed to observe, in a number of

instances, his own canon requiring preference of the female name when two

names are simultaneously given to the two sexes of a species, instancing,

besides others, the names “Janira,” ‘“ Arcuosa,” which should have been

« Jurtina,” Linn., “ Minima,” Haw. He also complained that this

publication, like Mr. Doubleday’s Lists, assumed, though published with

an object altogether different, to introduce changes in arrangement.

With reference to Dr. Knaggs’ proposal to place Pterophorus after

Pyralis, he remarked that “if such a change was to be so brought

about it was a waste of time ever to write a book.” Remarking on

a passage in Mr. Newman’s ‘ Natural History of British Moths,’ as to

Mr. Doubleday having “approved” certain changes, Mr. Lewis declared

that what entomologists want is not that changes should come to them

“stamped with the approval of this or that leading man, but that an

author, who proposes any change in nomenclature or arrangement, would

first state all his reasons, and then leave the approval to them.”

Mr. Lewis strenuously protested against any changes in arrangement

being introduced in a mere list of synonyms, and quoted M. Guenée as

satirizing the practice. As to changes in names, he suggested that the

legal maxim “ Communis error facit jus” might with advantage be applied

in cases of long-forgotten specific names, as he felt assured it would, in

effect, be, in the case of the misapplied generic names detailed by

Mr. Crotch in the Ent. Soc. Trans. for 1870; and he also condemned the

insufficiency of the information given by all the English lists, showing that

Xvli

none of the lists stated the reason for a change of name, or whether the

discarded name was supplanted by a prior one, or found to refer to a different

species.

With reference to Mr. Lewis’s criticisms on recent changes in the

arrangement of British Lepidoptera, Mr. Briggs remarked that Mr. New-

man, in his ‘ Natural History of British Moths,’ had united Tapinostola

Bondii and Miana arcuosa into a genus termed Chortodes, giving no

reason for this change excepting Mr. Doubleday’s “approval.” Mr. Briggs

had examined the palpi of these two species, and found they were very

dissimilar; he considered, therefore, that this union of the two into a

special genus was unnatural.

New Part of ‘ Transactions.’

Part i. of the ‘ Transactions for 1871’ was on the table.

8 May, 1871.

Prof. Westwoop, M.A., F'.L.S., Vice-President, in the Chair,

Additions to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ No. 127; presented by the

Society. ‘ Verhandlungen der k. k. zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in

Wien,’ t.xx.; by the Society. ‘ Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift,’

1870, Heft 3 & 4, and Beiheft 1871, Heft 1 & 4; by the Society.

‘ Bullettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana,’ t. i. fasc. 2; by the

Society. ‘Third Annual Report on the Noxious, Beneficial and other

Insects of the State of Missouri, made to the State Board of Agriculture,

pursuant to’an Appropriation for this purpose from the Legislature of the

State,’ by Charles V. Riley, State Entomologist; by the Author. ‘The

Journal of the Quekett Microscopical Club,’ No. 14; by the Club.

‘ Recherches Physico-chimiques sur les Articules Aquatiques,’ par Felix

Plateau, le Partie; by the Author. ‘Catalogue of Zygopine, a subfamily

of Curculionide, found by Mr. Wallace in the Eastern Archipelago,’ by

Francis P. Pascoe, F.L.S., &c., late Pres. Ent. Soc.; by the Author.

‘Petites Nouvelles Entomologiques,’ Nos. 28 & 29; by the Editor. ‘The

Zoologist’ for May; by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s Monthly

Magazine’ for May; by the Editors.

By purchase :—‘ Catalog der Lepidopteren des Europaischen Faunen-

gebiets ;’ I. Macro-lepidoptera bearbeitet von Dr. O. Staudinger; II. Micro-

lepidoptera bearbeitet yon Dr. M. Wocke. ‘Skandinaviens Coleoptera

synoptisk bearbetade af C. G. Thomson,’ tom. x.

XVlll

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. Higgins exhibited collections of exotic insects from Natal and

Borneo. In the former were magnificent examples of several of the larger

South-African Bombyces, bred from the larve; and he also exhibited a

series of figures of these larve, executed by what was described to him as a

«chromo-photographic process,” the figures having evidently been obtaimed

by means of photography, and presenting their natural colours.

Mr. Meek exhibited the example of Nyssia lapponaria (male) of Boisduval,

recorded in the ‘ Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine,’ vol. vil. p. 282, as

having been recently taken by Mr. Warrington at Rannoch, Perthshire,

new to the British Fauna.

Prof. Westwood exhibited a collection of varieties of British Lepidoptera,

obtained by Mr. Briggs from an old collection formed in the time of

Haworth. Among them were singular forms of Lycena dispar, Leucophasia

sinapis, Lithosia helveola, &c.

The Rev. R. P. Murray exhibited a series of Lepidoptera captured in

Switzerland, including an example of Lyczena Euridice (said by Staudinger

to be a form of Hippothée), in which the spots of the under side formed

long streaks.

Mr. Bicknell (on behalf of Mr. Cowan, who was present as a visitor)

exhibited an extraordinary specimen of Gonepteryx rhamni, captured by

Mr. Cowan at Beckenham, in March, 1870. This example was a male of

the ordinary form, but the costal margin of each anterior wing was broadly,

but unequally, suffused with bright rose-colour or scarlet, and the right

posterior wing was marked in a like manner.

Mr. M‘Lachian suggested that possibly the wings of the insect had come

in contact with some substance during hybernation, which had chemically

altered the coloration.

Mr. Janson said he had noticed that yellow insects killed by cyanide of

potassium became red.

Mr. Cowan said the individual exhibited had been killed by chloroform,

and moreover it was in precisely the same condition when captured.

Mr. Bicknell also exhibited varieties of other British Lepidoptera.

Mr. Stainton exhibited beautifully-executed coloured figures of the mines

of various Micro-Lepidoptera, collected at Santa Marta, by Baron Von

Nolcken, who had proceeded upon an entomological expedition to New

Granada.

Mr. Champion exhibited Scydmenus rufus, Mill. dé Kunze, a beetle new

to the British list, recently captured by him in Richmond Park, as recorded

in the ‘ Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine,’ vol. vil. p. 273.

Mr. M‘Lachlan exhibited a tusk of an Indian elephant, placed in his

hands by Dr. Sclater, accompanied by the following explanatory note,

X1X

extracted from the Report of a recent meeting of the Zoological

Society :—

“Mr. Sclater exhibited a pair of tusks of a female Indian elephant

(Elephas indicus), which presented the appearance of having been corroded

or eaten away in the basal portion, immediately adjacent to the end pro-

jecting from the gums. Just below this, on the outer side of each tusk, was

deposited a mass of egg-like bodies arranged in regular series, apparently of

some dipterous insect, and somewhat resembling those of the common blow-

fly (Musca vomitoria). These tusks had been submitted to Mr. Bartlett for

examination by Mr. G. S. Roden, of the 1st Royals, lately stationed in

India, who had communicated to Mr. Sclater the following note on the

subject :—‘ The tusks which I left with Mr. Bartlett belonged to a female

elephant, which I shot last June at a place called Muddry, at the foot of the

Manantowady Mountains in Malabar. Directly after shooting her I lifted

up her lips to see the size of the tusks, and then noticed the deposit of eggs

on them. I had them carefully cut out. On cleaning the tusks afterwards

I noticed that they had been eaten away at the ends, and also near where

the white eggs were. There were no maggots in the grooves at the end of

the tusks; they were merely filled up with some dark dry clay, just the same

_as what you now see the eggs now surrounded by. ‘The tusks have been

slightly polished over, but I took great care that the eggs should not be

touched.’ Mr. Sclater remarked that a previous notice of the same pheno-

menon had appeared in a letter addressed to the ‘ Field’ newspaper on the

12th of March last, signed by a well-known Indian sportsman, under the

pseudonym of ‘Smoothbore’:—‘ Has any zoologist or microscopist ever

noticed how the tusks of female elephants are attacked and eaten away by

some parasite? and is it not most singular that this has never been observed

in the tusks of the male?’ Mr. Sclater added that he had been informed

by Prof. Flower that- there was an exactly similar pair of tusks in the

Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, but that he had hitherto sought

in vain for any information as to the name of this extraordinary parasite

that was able to digest ivory.”

The eggs in question were each about 1’”’ in length, hence of enormous

bulk as compared with those of Musca vomitoria.

Mr. M‘Lachlan was of opinion that the decay of the tusk was not directly

traceable to the larve produced from these eggs, and therefore there was

no evidence that the insect “digested” ivory. He thought rather that the

parasite took advantage of an already diseased condition, and possibly fed

upon the morbid secretions thereby generated. Prof. Westwood thought

that possibly the habit was not a normal one, and that the parasites had

simply been attracted by the disease, in the same way that flies frequent

festering wounds. Dr. Sclater desired information as to what creature

was likely to have produced the eggs, but no Member present had before

heard of a similar instance.

Mr. W. A. Lewis exhibited an earthenware jar, of Chinese manufacture,

about the shape of an ordinary tobacco-jar, and which was being used as

such by a friend some time resident in China, from whom he obtained it.

His friend narrated that the same description of jar was used by the

inhabitants of Pekin for the purpose of confining what was termed the

“oreat fighting beetle.” According to him the Chinese used this beetle for

sporting purposes. Each was placed in a separate jar and allowed no

nutriment other than water absorbed by the very thick porous bottom of

the jar. Under this treatment they became very ferocious, and were then

pitted one against the other.

Prof. Westwood reminded the meeting that the Chinese had long been

known to employ Mantide in a similar manner.

Mr. Lewis, Mr. M‘Lachlan and other Members brought before the notice

of the meeting, paragraphs that had been going the round of the newspapers,

concerning a phcenomenon observed apparently on two recent occasions at

Bath; it appearing that after violent storms the ground was covered with

some creatures, variously described as Annelides and Insects, which had

baffled the knowledge possessed by the ‘ scientific men” of that city.

Prof. Westwood thought the creatures were probably Branchipus stag-

nalis, a large fresh-water entomostracon.

Mr. Miller communicated the following note on a gall found on Pteris

aquilina ;—

“Tn March, 1869, Mr. Rothney placed in my hands a chip-box con-

taining a dessicated excrescence of about the size of a very large pea, and

some Cynipideous insects, as well as two specimens of a Callimome. Mr.

Rothney informed me at the same time that he had found this excrescence

on the common bracken (Pteris aquilina) at Shirley. The excrescence was

bleached to a straw-colour, but its condition prevented my being able to

form a correct opinion as to the plant from which it was taken; and

besides I then knew of no gall on any fern. On dissecting the gall I found

it composed of an accumulation of small larval cells, some of them still

containing dead specimens of the maker. The insects being in a very bad

condition, I did not think it worth my while to examine them, so I carded

them with the excrescence and put them aside.

“Having lately had occasion to peruse Professor Schenck’s work on the

Cynipidee of Nassau, I found (at p. 127) the following observation :—

‘No. 69. There is in the collection of Herr von Heyden a gall on the

bracken (Pteris aquilina), similar to that of Diastrophus rubi; a swelling

on the upper side of the stem, curved, resembling an episcopal staff, 1—2”

long, full of roundish pierced cells, pale yellowish; a similar straight one in

XX1

the same collection has also been taken from that fern. A specimen

agreeing with the above curved one is in my collection, but I do not well

recollect on what plant I have found it. The galls on the fern belong

probably to Diastrophus rubi, with the gall of which they quite agree.’

After reading this passage, I at once examined Mr. Rothney’s Cynipide

carefully, and although they are in a very bad condition I have not the

slightest doubt that they are Diastrophus rubi of Hartig and Schenck.

It now only remains, to complete this observation, to breed D. rubi from

fresh undoubted fronds of the bracken. Probably the tips of unexpanded

fronds are chosen by the insect for the deposition of its eggs; hence the

subsequent curved shape of the gall, as described by Professor Schenck.”

Papers read, de.

Mr. W. F.. Kirby communicated the following notes on the synonymy of

certain European Lepidoptera :—

“Pap. (Melitea) Cinxia, var. B, Geoffroy = Pap. Athalia, Rott. This

insect is referred by Godart' to Pheebe, Hsp., and by Werneburg to Athalia,

Esp. Werneburg’s identification is probably correct; but if Godart is-

right, Phcebe, Hsp., must take the name of Athalia, Rott., and Athalia,

Esp., the name of Leucippe, Schneid.

Pap. Podalirius, Linn. Werneburg is wrong in restoring Poda’s name

of Sinon to this species. Even if we take the tenth edition of Linneus’

‘Systema Nature’ (1758) as our starting point, instead of the twelfth

(1767), still Podalirius is named in the tenth edition, and though not

described, because at first regarded by Limneus as a variety of Pap.

Protesilaus, is sufficiently characterized by the references which he

quotes.

“Sesia. In the tenth edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ Linneus

describes the broad-bordered species as bombyliformis, and the narrow-

bordered as fuciformis, besides Sphinx Tityus, which he afterwards con-

sidered to be identical with the former. In ‘Fauna Suecica,’ ed. 2, he

describes the narrow-bordered as fuciformis; but in Syst. Nat., ed. 12,

he describes the broad-bordered under that name, placing bombyliformis as

a var. of Sph. Porcellus. Under these circumstances the only way of

avoiding further confusion seems to be to revert to the tenth edition of the

‘Systema,’ as is done on the Continent, and to apply the name bombyli-

formis to the broad-bordered, and fuciformis to the narrow-bordered

species.”

Prof. Westwood read ‘Descriptions of some new Species of Exotic

Lucanide.”

Mr. H. W. Bates read a description of a new genus and species of

Longicorn Coleoptera, collected in Matabili Land, Southern Africa, by the

well-known traveller Mr. T. Baines. He exhibited the insect, which he

proposed to call Bolbotritus Bainesi. It belonged to Lacordaire’s group

‘Cerambycides vrais,’ and was remarkable for the large and bulbose

third antennal joint, the succeeding joints being much shortened. From

the same locality he also exhibited examples of Onthophagus rangifer,

which, instead of being bright coppery as in the Zambesi individuals, were

bright green, though presenting no structural differences.

Mr. Bates also read a description of a new species of Mallaspis from

Chiriqui, near Panama, allied to M. Beltii: this he named M. preecellens.

5 June, 1871.

J. W. Dunnine, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., Vice-President, in the Chair.

Donations to the Library.

The following donations were announced,, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ No. 128; presented by the

‘Society. ‘Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society

of London,’ 1870, Parts 1—3; by the Society. ‘Annales de la Société

Entomologique de Belgique,’ tome xiii.; by the Society. ‘Mémoires de la

Societe de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genéve,’ tomes ii. & iv.,

& tome xx., 2° Partie; by the Society. ‘Synopsis des Cordulines,’ par

M. Edm. de Selys Longchamps; by the Author. ‘The Zoologist’ for June ;

by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine’ for June; by the

Editors. ‘The Canadian Entomologist,’ No. 12; by the Editor. ‘The

Silk Supply Journal,’ No. 10; by the Silk Supply Association.

Exhibitions, &c.

The Secretary read the following letter (dated May 9th), received from

the Rev. L. Jenyns, of Bath, concerning the newspaper reports, alluded to

at the last Meeting, as to the supposed showers of insects, or other

organisms, occurring at that city :—

“Seeing in the ‘ Atheneum’ that mention was made at the last Meeting

of the Entomological Society of a ‘so-called storm of insects’ that had fallen

lately at Bath on two occasions, with reference to the inaccuracy of news-

paper reports in scientific matters, I venture to send, for the information of

the Members of the Society, a statement of so much as I know respecting

the phenomenon in question. I did not witness it, indeed I was not in

Bath at the time; but a person who keeps a small inn near the Midland

Railway-station, where the phenomenon was observed, on my requesting to

see them, showed me some of the organisms still alive, which he had kept

in a tumbler of water since the time of their falling. This was several days

XXill

after the occurrence of the storm, and, having already parted with a great

many specimens, he would not allow me to take one away with me for

closer examination at home. But I saw enough to satisfy me as to their

nature, if not to identify the exact species. They were not, as may be

supposed, true insects, nor were they Entomostraca, as Professor Westwood

thought they might perhaps have been, but forms of Infusoria, more

especially of the genus Vibrio, large numbers of which were present, some

swimming freely in the water, but the greater part congregated in spherical

masses about the size of a small marble, each mass being surrounded

by a semitransparent filmy sort of skin or envelope, through which the

minute worms might be readily discerned with a pocket lens, tangled

together and in a nearly quiescent state. I believe them to have been the

Vibrio undula of Miiller (‘Animalcula Infusoria,’ p. 46, tab. vi. figs.

4—6, 1785), or some very closely-allied species; and his figure gives an

exact representation of the appearance of the congregated masses of worms

as presented in this instance, this habit being characteristic of the species.

He speaks of the masses being sometimes collected round the branchlets of

a conferva (as given in one of his figures). The surrounding skin, which -

I have alluded to above, I suspect to have been nothing more than a pellicle

of scum, &c., deposited from stagnant water, perhaps rendered thick by

evaporation. I was told there had been a sudden squall of wind before there

came on a heavy rain, and my idea is that these organisms must have been

lifted up by the force of the wind, acting in a gyratory manner, from some

shallow pool in the neighbourhood, reduced perhaps to little more than

a large puddle, in the centre of which, from the drying up of the water

around, the organisms had collected. A boy at the station first noticed

them (i.e. the above spherical masses) falling on his coat, &c., as the rain

came on, and shortly after, as the rain fell more heavily, the platform, so

much as was not under shelter,—so I was told,—was covered with them.

A few had been observed during a storm some days previous to the fall of

of which the above is an account.”

Mr. Butler exhibited species of Lepidoptera, upon which experiments had

been made by Mr. Meldola, with regard to testing the effects of dyes. The

insects were Pieris brassicee and napi, Gonepteryx rhamni, Vanessa urtice,

Pyrameis Atalanta and Arctia caja. The most striking effects were ob-

servable in P. napi dyed black, and A. caja dyed metallic-green and magenta.

The dyes used were aniline. Mr. Meldola dissolved the dyes in spirits of

wine and laid them on with a camel-hair pencil. Not being satisfied with

Mr. Meldola’s experiments, Mr. Butler resolved upon performing others on

his own account; but being then ignorant of the system pursued, he dis-

solved his dyes in hot water, and discovered that the specimens would not

take them. He then made a solution of soda, into which he dipped

G. rhamni, and found that the yellow pigment immediately united with the

X¥1V

soda, and was discharged into the solution, which it visibly coloured, and he

saw no reason why, if a sufficient number of individuals were experimented

upon, the colour should not be collected and utilised. Colias Edusa and

Hyale, Danais Chrysippus and Vanessa urticee were deprived of their natural

colours in the same manner. Mr. Butler had experimented upon G. rhamni

(dyed blue), C. Edusa and Hyale, Papilio Demoleus, Lycsna Corydon,

Danais Chrysippus, Argynnis Adippe and Aglaia, Vanessa urtice, Epi-

nephele Janira, Arctia caja and villica. The most successful results were

obtained with Danais Chrysippus, deprived of its natural colours and dyed

blue, which colour only entered certain scales, whereas magenta, being a

faster dye, entered all: and V. urtice, dyed blue in one case, and magenta

in another; the latter resembled a typical South-African Junonia, the former

a melanitic variety of the same species. The peculiarity in these specimens

consisted in certain parts of the wings not taking the dye, leading to the

conclusion that the scales are more perfectly closed in these parts.

Mr. Meldola (who was present as a visitor) remarked that he had also

made experiments with alkalines; the yellow of G. rhamni being removed

by soda, and precipitated by the addition of an acid. He possessed an

example of Vanessa Io altered to deep mahogany-colour by exposure to the

fumes of ammonia.

Mr. Bicknell exhibited a number of examples of Gonepteryx rhamni,

upon which he had experimented with cyanide of potassium, as suggested

at the last meeting. The yellow was changed to orange-red in the parts

exposed to the cyanide.

Mr. F. Smith stated that he had seen a number of wasps that had been

killed by cyanide of potassium, and which, in consequence, were changed to

vermilion.

The hope was expressed that these interesting experiments would not be

taken advantage of by unscrupulous persons, in consequence of the prevailing

disposition to pay high prices for varieties of common Lepidoptera.

Mr. W. C. Boyd exhibited an example of Rumia crategata, taken at

Stoke Newington, the apical portion of one anterior wing of which was

suffused with brown, the insect being in that condition when caught.

Mr. Miiller exhibited the bell-shaped nest of the spider Aglena brunnea.

Also fresh specimens of the cabbage-galls formed by an undescribed species

of four-legged Acari belonging to the genus Phytoptus, upon birch; these

galls were Saecually common this season.

Mr. F. Smith exhibited three rare British Hymenopterous insects sent

to him by Mr. J.C. Dale, of Glanville’s Wootton, in which neighbourhood

they had been captured. They were Myrmecomorphus rufescens (a

remarkable species of Proctotrupide), Ichneumon glaucopterus and Osmia

pilicornis.

Mr. Holdsworth, of Shanghai, communicated the following notes on the

XXV

method pursued in China in rearing the silk-producing Bombyx Pernyi,

extracted from a Shanghai newspaper :—

“Bombyx Pernyi feeds exclusively on oak leaves, producing a reddish

gray cocoon, from which is spun a fine glossy thread; breeds and forms

cocoons twice a year, and, unlike Bombyx mori, its chrysalis, after the

second production, remains in the cocoon till the following spring. Two

kinds of oaks are used for its food: one with narrow serrated leaves and

conical acorns, the other with broad and long leaves with short round acorns.

The latter kind is preferred on account of supplying a larger amount of

food. The trunks of the oak trees are cut, as will be explained in the

notes, for two reasons: first, to keep the branches within easy reach;

secondly, to obtain a better adapted quality of leaves at the requisite time

of the season. The alternate use of the bushes is necessary to keep up the

successive production of cocoons without damaging the bushes, which would

suffer if deprived of leaves twice in the same season, and also to allow

sufficient time for them to grow. The dissimilarity of treatment between

the first and second production is simply caused by the difference of time of

the season in which they take place. At the first production the newly

hatched worms, if transferred at once on the bushes in the open air, would

be liable to total destruction by a too great fall of temperature; while no

such danger is incurred late in summer, when the second production is pro-

eressing. It can easily be seen that Bombyx Pernyi could be raised

altogether within doors; but by so doing it would entail more labour in

keeping it supplied with food, besides requiring the continual cutting of

fresh branches. This would not only cause a great waste of leaves, but

limit the supply.

“ Notes on the Practical System followed in the Province of Shang-tung

for the cultivation of Bombyx Pernyt.

“ Five or six years (according to their growth) after the oaks have been

planted, each trunk is cut off close to the roots about November, and in the

following year, the new branches springing out round the foot, the truncated

trees will form into low bushes. The first year after the oaks have been

cut, the second yearly production of cocoons can only be raised on them, and

they are afterwards used alternately with others for the consecutive

cultivation of the first and second yearly productions. In explanation of

the above, let us suppose we have one hundred oak trees. ‘These must be

divided into two sections; each section to be cut separately at the interval

of one year. Thus, out of one hundred trees, fifty, cut in November 1870,

will serve for raising the second yearly production of cocoons in August,

1871, and the first yearly production in May, 1872; while the other fifty

trees, cut in November, 1871, will serve for the second yearly production

in August, 1872, and the first yearly production in May, 18783. Once this’

XXV1

system is established, it is followed up by recutting every year that section

of the bushes which has already served for two successive productions of

cocoons within two years. When the second production of one section takes

place in the spring, the recutting is effected in July, directly after the

cocoons are gathered; and when it occurs in August the recutting is done

in November. In this way both sections are used alternately every year for

each production of cocoons, allowing also ample time for the requisite

srowth of the bushes.

“The cocoons retained for obtaining seed must be kept during the winter

at a uniform cold temperature, taking care not to expose them to any heat

above 60°, Fahrt.

“On arrival of the spring, whenever the oaks begin to bud, the cocoons

intended for preparation of seed are strung together with thread, in long

rows, and suspended in rooms. Care must be taken, in order to facilitate

the issue of moths, that the point of suspension of each cocoon must be the

same that served to attach it to the leaf-stalk while in course of formation.

If the temperature at this time is not sufficiently high for the development

of the chrysalis, it must be gradually raised artificially until the moths begin

to issue from the cocoons. When the moths are out it is necessary to wait

till they have well distended their wings before placing them in the coupling-

baskets. Coupling-baskets are lined on the inside with paper pasted all

round the sides and bottom, with the exception of the cover, to allow

ventilation. The same number of male and female moths are to be placed

in the baskets, with sufficient room for free movement. The moths generally

issue from the cocoons between 6 and 7 p.m., and their coupling, which

takes place directly afterwards, lasts about twenty-two hours. The male

moths are then detached from the females and thrown away. The female

moths are placed in other baskets like the first, inside of which, on the

paper, they will soon deposit their seed. The baskets must be kept closed

to prevent their escaping.

“The baskets containing seed are kept in rooms sufficiently warm (about

70° Fahr., the temperature of the season in fine weather), and after twelve

days the seed will be hatched. When the young worms are all out, oak-

branches with tender leaves are cut and stuck in earthen pots or wooden

boxes, filled with well-moistened sand or mud to preserve the freshness of

the leaves. The baskets containing the newly-hatched worms are then

placed close to the branches, on which the worms will instinctively ascend

in search of food; more fresh branches are added in the same manner, as

food must always be abundantly supplied. When the worms have passed

the second muta (Italian term for each successive period of feeding and

sleeping of silkworms), a fine day is chosen to transfer the worms to the

bushes. This is done by holding the branches, on which the worms are,

close to the bushes, paying attention to distribute them well, so as to avoid

XXVil

placing too many on some bushes and too few on others. A certain number

of bushes are always to be kept in reserve, in case that it should be found

necessary to remove to them worms which have consumed all the leaves

where first placed. This operation is done by cutting the branches bearing

the worms and transferring them as already indicated. In case it is not

convenient to do so, then each worm must be seized with the thumb and

fore finger by the posterior end, and suddenly pulled off at the same time ;

otherwise, such is their power of adhesion, they would be torn to death

sooner than relinquish their hold. All kinds of birds must be kept away,

to prevent the destruction of the worms.

“ Bombyx Pernyi undergoes five mute of the following periods:—

Ist muta from 4 to 5 days.

ana * 55 ‘ia poe ak oda

ord”; i ake =

4th, ne is Ss

Gti ss rie ailerrsd Mts allah

having in average, from the hatching to the beginning of formation of

cocoon, a period of forty-five days. The worms, after undergoing the fifth

muta, will form the cocoons in about three days; but as a general rule they

are not gathered till after the fifth day, in order to give time for the perfect

formation of cocoons by such worms as are somewhat later than others.

“The cocoons reserved for obtaining seed for the second yearly pro-

duction are spread out to dry for three or four days, and are then strung

together, as mentioned for the first production. The moths will issue from

the cocoons after twelve or fifteen days from the gathering of cocoons. The

coupling-baskets used this time are not provided with paper, on account of

the high temperature of the season (August). The females when separated

from the male moths, instead of being replaced in baskets, are fastened with

a thread by one of their larger wings, and tied (leaving a few inches scope)

on bunches of fresh-cut branches with leaves, which are suspended by their

cut ends: on these branches the female moths will deposit their seed. The

rooms where the branches are kept suspended must be cool and well

ventilated. When the worms are hatched the branches are straightway

carried to the bushes, upon which the worms are transferred at once, to

proceed through their successive stages till the formation of the cocoons.”

Papers read.

Mr. W. F. Kirby communicated the following “Synonymic Notes on

Lepidoptera”: —

1. SPHINGID®.

“ Under this title I propose from time to time to publish such corrections

of synonymy as may occur to me in the course of my studies, supple-

mentary to the three most recent Catalogues of the Order Lepidoptera—my

XXV1ll

own of the Rhopalocera; Mr. Walker's British Museum Catalogue of

the Heterocera; and Staudinger and Wocke’s Catalogue of European

Lepidoptera.

Perigonia (Sphinx) lusca, Fabr. Gen. Ins. p. 272 (1777).

Calliomma (Sphinx) Parce, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p. 543 (1775). 8. Licastus,

Cram. t. 381, A. B. (1782).

C. (Sphinx) Pluto, Cram. t. 216, E. The Pluto of the Mus. Lesk. is

Pluto of Fabricius, not of Cramer.

Cheerocampa Eson, Walk. The synonymy is as follows:—Thyelia,

vel Theylia, Linn.; Boerhavie, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p. 542; Hson, Cram.

Walker quotes also Sphinx Pluto, Mabr. (nec Cram.), but erroneously.

I should be inclined also to doubt the identity of Thyelia, Linn., but have

not Clerck’s figure to refer to. In this case Fabricius’ name would have

the priority over Cramer's.

Cheerocampa Clotho, Drury. Sphinx Clotho, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p. 540

(nec Mant. and Syst. Ent.) is synonymous with Philampelus Labrusce.

C. (Sphinx) Oldenlandiz, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p. 542. Chcerocampa

argentata, Steph.

C. (Sphinx) Lycetus, Cram. t. 61, D.

Pergesa (Sphinx) Pluto, Fabr. (nec Oram.) Gen. Ins. p. 274 (1777);

Zschach, Mus. Lesk. p. 95, t. 3, f. 184. Sphinx Thorates, Hibn.

Daucus, Cram. t. 125, D (1779). Confounded by Fabricius in his subse-

quent works with D. livornica; but his original description is perfectly

clear, as remarked by Westwood in his ‘ British Moths.’

Philampelus (Sphinx) Labrusce, Linn. See above.

Darapsa (Sphinx) Gnoma, abr. Syst. Ent. p.546 (1775). Sphinx Butus,

Cram. t. 152 (1775).

Zonilia (Sphinx) Didyma, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p.548 (1775). Sphinx Peneus,

Cram. t. 88, D (1779). Sphinx Peneus, Fabr. Mant. Ins. 11. p. 93, must be

a different species.

Zonilia (Sphinx) Hespera, Fabr. Syst. Hint. p. 546 (1775). Sphinx

Morpheus, Cram. t. 149 D (1779). |

Macrosila (Sphinx) rustica, abr. Syst. Ent. p. 540.

Sphinx cingulata, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p.545. Sesia cingulata, Zschach,

Mus. Lesk. p. 96, t. 3, n. 193; Gmel. p. 2386, is one of the Adgeriide.

S. jasminearum, Gray, Griff. An. Kingd. Ins. 83, f. 1 (Walker, xxxi.

Suppl. p. 36).

S.sordida, Harr. It has been suggested that this species is identical

with 8. peecila, Steph. (Harris, Correspondence, p. 157).

Anceryx (Sphinx) plebeja, abr. Gen. Ins. p. 2738.

_ Smerinthus geminata, Harr. The synonyms quoted by Walker (jamai-

censis, Dru., and cerisii, A7b.) appear to me to belong to two distinct species. ~

S. Timesius, Stoll, t. 40, f.1 (1790). Sphinx modesta, abr. (nec Harr.)

Ent. Syst. ii. 1, p. 856 (1793).

Acherontia (Sphinx) Lachesis, Fabr. Ent. Syst. Suppl. p. 484 (1798).

Morta, Hiibn. Lethe, Westw. Satanas, Boisd.

Macroglossa ?? fimbriata, Walker, viii. p. 261. Sesia fimbriata, Gmel., is

one of the Augeriide. See Zschach’s description and figure, Mus. Lesk.,

p- 96, t. 3; f. 192.

Sphinx Abadonna, Fabr. Ent. Syst. Suppl. p. 435, is not noticed by

Walker.”

Mr. Baly communicated “ Descriptions of new Genera and of some

recently-discovered Species of Australian Phytophaga.” The new genera

he named Duboulaia (intermediate between Megamerus and Prionesthis),

Strumatophyma and Sperolina. In all twenty-two new species were

described, eleven of which pertained to Ditropidus, eight to Lachnabothra,

and the others to Carpophagus and Elaphodus.

Mr. Butler read ‘‘ Descriptions of five new Species and a new Genus of

Diurnal Lepidoptera from Shanghai.” These insects had all been collected

by Mr, W. B. Pryer. The new genus was termed Palesonympha; allied to

Neonympha. The other species belonged to the genera Lethe, Yphthima,

Neptis and Argynnis. ‘

New Part of ‘ Transactions.’

Part 2 of the ‘ Transactions’ for 1871 was on the table.

3 July, 1871.

A. R. Wattace, Esq., F.Z.S., President, in the chair.

Additions to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ The Journal of the Linnean Society,’ No. 51; presented by the

Society. ‘ Bulletin de la Societe Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou,’

1870, No. 2; by the Society. ‘Mittheilungen der schweizerischen ento-

mologischen Gesellschaft,’ vol. iii. Nos. 6 and 7; by the Society. ‘ Horae

Societatis Entomologicze Rossice,’ t. vil. No. 4, t. vill. No.1; by the Society.

‘The Canadian Entomologist,’ vol. iii. No.1; by the Editor. ‘ Beitriige

zur Kenntniss der Kafer (Coleoptera) in den russischen Ostseeprovinzen

Kurland, Livland und Estland,’ von J. H. Kawall; by the Author. ‘ Fauna

Perthensis; or, Contribution towards a Knowledge of the Animals in-

habiting Perthshire,’ Part I., Lepidoptera, by F. Buchanan White, M.D.;

by the Author. ‘L’Abeille,’ tome vii. livr. 10 & 11; by the Editor. ‘The

XXX

Zoologist’ for July; by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s Monthly Maga-

zine’ for July; by the Editors. ‘ Exotic Butterflies,’ Part 79; by W. W.

Saunders, Esq. ‘ Lepidoptera Exotica,’ Part ix.; by EK. W. Janson, Esq.

‘Catalogue of British Coleoptera,’ by David Sharp, M.B., &c.; by HE. W.

Janson, Esq* ‘Monographie des Caloptérygines;’ ‘Note sur quelques

Névroptéres nouveaux de Port Denison (Australia) ;’ ‘ Additions et Cor-

rections au Catalogue-raisonné des Orthopteres de Belgique ;’ ‘ Note sur

une excursion dans l’Entre-Sambre-et-Meuse ;’ ‘ Notice sur une nouvelle

. espéce de Némoptére;’ ‘Note sur quelques Odonates nouveaux du

Mexique;’ ‘Odonates des Iles Seychelles;’ ‘Nouvelle Revision des

Odonates de l’Algérie ;’ ‘Secondes Additions au Synopsis des Gemphines ;’

‘Secondes Additions au Synopsis des Calopterygines;’ by the Author,

M. le Baron Edm. de Selys-Longchamps. ‘Stettiner entomologische

Zeitung,’ 1871, Nos. 4—9; by the Entomological Society of Stettin.

Twelve Memoirs on Arachnida; by the Author, the Rev. O. P. Cam-

bridge, M.A.

By purchase:—‘ Bericht iiber die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen im

Gebiete du Entomologie wahrend der Jahr 1867 und 1868,’ von F’. Brauer

& Dr. A. Gerstaecker; Zweite Halfte.

Exhibitions, &c.

Prof. Westwood exhibited the minute-book of proceedings of an Ento-

mological Society existing in London in 1780. The members appeared to

have consisted of Messrs. Drury, Honey, Swift, Francillon, Jones and

Bentley. The meetings were held weekly, but, in consequence of some

internal dissensions, the Society seemed to have collapsed in about a year.

The “business” done chiefly embraced notes on the appearance of various

species, and the objects of the members’ studies were divided into three

classes, “flies” (butterflies), “moths” and “insects.”

Mr. 8. Stevens exhibited a collection of Coleoptera formed by him during

a recent tour in Ireland. ‘The most interesting species was Chleenius holo-

sericeus, of which he had captured several examples at Killaloe, near Lough

Derg.

Mr. Champion exhibited Emus hirtus, recently captured by him in cow-

dung in the New Forest; being the only instance of its occurrence since

the late Mr. Alfred Haward found a specimen many years since. He also

exhibited two new British species of Hemiptera, viz., Corizus Abutilon,

Rossi, and Drymus latus, described by Messrs. Douglas and Scott in the

‘ Eutomologist’s Monthly Magazine’ for June and July, 1871.

Mr. Blackmore exhibited a collection of insects of all orders from

Tangiers, including some from Fez. There appeared to be many new

species of Coleoptera, which Mr. Blackmore announced his intention of

describing at a future meeting. Locusts, (Acrydium peregrinum), were

XXX1

exceedingly abundant at Tangiers, and the pedestrian was often ankle-deep

in the dead and dying on the shore. The natives destroyed them with

wisps of straw, and did not dig trenches to stop their ravages. Mr.

M’Lachlan having remarked that the Chinese held, or did hold, an opinion -

that locusts were developed from the eggs of craw-fish, Mr. Blackmore said

that the Spanish word ‘langosta’ was used both for a locust and lobster.

Mr. Druce exhibited several rare species of exotic Rhopalocera, the

most interesting being Euryades Reevi, Westwood, Heliconia Hermogenes,

Hewitson, Heliconia, n.s., Eresia, n. s. (2), Catagramma, n. s. (2), Agrias .

Amydon, Hew., Paphia Panarista, Hew., Paphia nobilis, Bates, Siderone

Mars, Hew., &c. ;

Mr. Stainton exhibited (on behalf of its captor, the Rey. R. P. Murray)

an example of Botys fuscalis, from the Isle of Man, to the head of which

still adhered a portion of the puparium. The antenne and haustellum

were free, but the case of the latter projected perpendicularly from the

under side of the head, simulating the rostrum of a Panorpa. The insect

must have been nearly blind, yet it was flying briskly at the time of

capture.

Mr. Miiller exhibited a vine-leaf from Basle, attacked by Phytoptus

vitis, which causes fur-like spots on the leaves, known as Erineum vitis.

Mr. Riley, State Entomologist for Missouri (present as a visitor),

exhibited a large collection of North American insects, illustrating, in many

cases, their transformations. Among them was a coleopterous larva, which

Dr. Leconte (who was present) stated to be that of Pyrochroa flabellata.

Mr. Dunning read the following extract from the ‘Times’ of 27th

June :—‘ Under the pressure of necessity a Salt Lake City blacksmith has

invented a machine to kill grasshoppers. It can be manufactured for

seventy-five dollars. It consists of a frame drawn by two horses, haying

an apron extending forward close to the ground to scrape up the locusts,

with a hood above it, forming a box open in front. At the rear of the

machine is a pair of rollers geared together, the upper one driven by the

carrying wheels, of which it forms the axle. Whatever may find its way

into the front of the machine is obliged to pass between the rollers at the

back, which, being capable of being forced close together, are described as

completely demoralizing the ‘ ironclads.’”

Mr. Dunning also read a letter he had received from the Rev. W. H.

Wayne, of Much Wenlock, stating that both this year and last his ripe

strawberries were infested by a small Myriopod, which entered into the

interior; there were often six or eight in one strawberry, and they were

carrots were injured by what he seemed to consider the same creature, but,

from examples he sent, the depredators in this case were evidently the

larve of a Dipterous insect, Psila rose. The larve first showed their

XXX11

presence by a slightly crumpled appearance of the leaf, which commenced

to droop. On taking up the carrot no root-fibres are observed, the slender

portion being dry and brittle, and in the centre is found the larva. He

observed that all his neighbours’ gardens were infested in a similar manner.

Mr. Druce said that the carrots in his brother’s garden at Kingston were

destroyed by the same larvee.

Papers read, é&c.

Mr. H. W. Bates read descriptions of three new species of Cicindelide.

Two of these pertained to the genus Oxygonia of Mannerheim, and he

described them as O. albiteenia and O. cyanopis, from New Granada. The

third was Cicindela Crespignyi, from Borneo. Mr. Bates entered into an

examination of the affinities of Oxygonia, and agreed with the position near

Odontocheila assigned to it by Baron Chaudoir in his recent Catalogue.

Mr. C. O. Waterhouse communicated a paper “ On the black Species of

Cantharis with red heads and filiform antenne.”

Prof. Westwood read descriptions of new species of exotic Papilionide.

Having used the term ‘sub-species,’ Prof. Westwood explained that a

sub-species he considered as a modified form of a species as originally

created. Mr. Jenner Weir objected to the use of the term ‘created’ in

scientific communications.

Baron De Selys-Longchamps communicated a paper under the title

« Apercu statistique sur les Névropteres Odonates.” In this memoir he

enumerated the number of known species of dragon-flies under their

respective genera and subgenera. He estimated the total number at

about 1850.

Mr. S. S. Saunders read a paper intituled “ Strepsiperidum, pro ordine

Strepsipterorum Kirbii olim, mihi tamen potius Coleopterorum Familia

Rhipiphoridibus propinqua, Monographia.”

Mr. Saunders divided the groups into four subfamilies, according to the

several Hymenopterous tribes with which they are associated; namely (1),

the true Stylopide, found with the Mellifera of Latreille; (2) the Myrme-

colacidxe, with the Formicide ; (3) the Xenide, with the social wasps; and

(4) the Pseudoxenide, with the solitary wasps and Fossores; these latter

tribes coinciding more or less in their habits and economy, and requiring

about eight or nine months (from one year to the next) to attain maturity ;

involving a corresponding detention for their Strepsipterous dependents ;

whereas the true Xenide, consorting with the social Vespide, must. be

reared from their primary hexapod condition in from thirty to forty days.

- such being the term within which the larve of the social Vespide attain

the imago state; the females of the latter hybernating with those of Xenos,

which produce their larval brood the ensuing year; whereas the Pseu-

doxenid, after their long-protracted larval condition as aforesaid, must

: XXXill

produce their young the self-same year in which they themselves complete

their transformations, in order that their brood may obtain access to the

future larva-cells of their non-hybernating foster parents.

The genera recorded were eight in number, comprising 22 species,

as follows :—Halictophagus 1; Stylops 5; Hylecthrus 3; Elenchus 3;

Myrmecolax 1; Xenos 3; Pseudoxenos 8; and Paraxenos 3. Of these

16 were European (whereof 7 British), and 6 extra-European.

Mr. Saunders also exhibited a series of specimens, including two new

species, viz. Pseudoxenos Corcyricus ¢, from Epipone spinipes, L.; and

Paraxenos Erberi 3, from a variety of the Larra peregrina of Smith (now

pertaining to the genus Bembecinus of Costa); one of the former,

together with some others, being retained in situ, when in the act of

emerging from the pupa-cases in the bodies of their foster-parents.

The vexed question of the affinity of this class of insects with the

Coleoptera was adverted to in a preamble.

6 November, 1871.

Prof. J. O. Westwoop, M.A., F.L.S., &c., Vice-President, in the chair.

Additions to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Second and Third Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Peabody

Academy of Science ;’ presented by the Academy. ‘ Record of American

Entomology for the Year 1869;’ ‘On Insects inhabiting Salt Water;’

‘Catalogue of the Phalenide of California;’ ‘ Bristle-tails and Spring-

tails:’ ‘List of Ihsects collected at Pebas, Equador, and presented by

Prof. James Orton ;’ ‘The Early Stages of Ichneumon Parasites ;’ ‘ Mor-

phology and Ancestry of the King Crabs ;’ ‘ The Ancestry of Insects ;’ ‘ On

the Embryology of Limulus Polyphemus ;’ ‘The Caudal Styles of Insects’

Sense-organs, 7. e. Abdominal Antenne ;’ ‘Abdominal Sense-organs in a Fly ;’

‘A Remarkable Myriapod;’ presented by the Author, Dr. A. 8. Packard, jun.

‘ Proceedings and Communications of the Essex Institute,’ vol. vi. part ii. ;

‘ Bulletin of the Essex Institute,’ vol. iv.; by the Institute. ‘ Proceedings

of the Boston Society of Natural History,’ vol. xiii. Nos. 15—23; by the

Society. ‘Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York,’ vol. ix.

Nos. 21—26; by the Lyceum. ‘The American Naturalist,’ vol. iv.

Nos. 8—12; vol. v. No.1; by the Editors. ‘Monograph of the North-

American Astacide,’ by Dr. Hermann A. Hagen; by the Museum of

XXX1V

Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

‘Bulletins de Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-

Arts de Belgique,’ xxix. and xxx.; by the Society. ‘The Transactions of

the Linnean Sable vol. xxvii. part 3; ‘The Journal of the Linnean

Society—Zoology,’ Nos. 52 and 53; ‘ Proceedings of the Linnean Society,’

Session 1870—1871; by the Society. ‘Proceedings of the Royal

Society,’ No. 129; by the Society. ‘Proceedings of the Scientific

Meetings of the Zoological Society of London for the Year 1871,’

part i.; by the Society. ‘The Transactions of the Entomological Society

of New South Wales,’ vol. ii. part 2; by the Society. ‘The Journal of the

Quekett Microscopical Club,’ No. 15; by the Club. ‘ Bullettino della

Societa Entomologica Italiana,’ vol. iii. part 8; by the Society. ‘ Hore

Societatis Entomologicee Rossicie,’ tome viii. No. 2; by the Society. ‘The

Silk Supply Journal,’ Nos. 11,12; by the Association. ‘The Canadian

Entomologist, Nos. 2—6; by the Editor. ‘Catalogus Buprestidarum

Synonymicus et Systematicus;’ by the Author, Edward Saunders, Esq.

‘L’Abeille,’ 1870, livr. 12; 1871, livr.1—38; by the Editor. ‘ Remarks

on Synonyms of European Spiders,’ No.2; by the Author, T. Thorell.

‘Quest-ce que l’aile d’un Insecte?’ by the Author, Felix Plateau. ‘ Exotic

Butterflies,’ part 80; by W. Wilson Saunders, Esq. ‘ Lepidoptera Exotica,’

part 10; by E. W. Janson, Esq. ‘ Rhododendron Excrescences ;’ ‘ Batoneus

Populi, a Mite injurious to the Aspen in Scotland;’ by the Author,

A. Miller, Esq. ‘The Zoologist’ for August—November; by the Editor.

‘The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine’ for August—November; by the

Editors. ‘Annual Report and Transactions of the Adelaide Philosophical

Society for the year ending 30th September, 1870 ;’ by the Society.

The following books had been added by purchase: —‘A Synonymic

Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera,’ by W. F.-Kirby. ‘ Bericht tiber die

wissenschaftlichen Leistungen im Gebiete der Entomologie wahrend des

Jahres 1869,’ von Friedrich Brauer.

Hexhibitions, &c.

Mr. R. L. Davis exhibited an extensive series of beautifully preserved

larve of Lepidoptera and other insects, and a few spiders. Among them

were specimens illustrating the complete natural history of Cossus ligniperda,

and of some other common species.

Mr. Bond exhibited examples of Zygzna exulans, a recent addition to

the British Fauna, captured at Braemar by Dr. F’. Buchanan White. Also

a specimen of Catocala fraxini, captured in the Regent’s Park on the 12th of

September last; and he remarked that the insect had occurred in that

locality for three successive years. Furthermore he exhibited a very

singular variety of Chcerocampa elpenor from Ipswich, in which the central

portion of each fore wing was perfectly hyaline and free from scales, the

XXXV

insect being in perfect condition, and presenting no indication of the

peculiarity having been induced by artificial means.

Mr. Howard Vaughan exhibited examples of the Triphzna from Forres,

captured by Mr. G. Norman, which Mr. Newman had named T. Curtisii.

Mr, Vaughan, however, considered it to be only a dark form of T. orbona.

Mr. W. A. Lewis made some observations on the synonymy of this form,

pointing out that it had been figured by Curtis.as T. consequa, Hiibner, and,

further, that it was given by Stephens as T. subsequa, W. V.

Mr. Vaughan also exhibited a nearly black variety of Arge Galathea,

captured in Kent by Mr. Farn.

Mr. E. W. Janson exhibited two new, or recently detected, species of

Coleoptera, captured by the Rev. A. Matthews, as follows :-—

‘“THROSCUS CARINIFRONS, de Bonvouloir, Essai Monographique sur la

Famille des Throscides, p. 20, tab. i. fig. 5 (1859).

« At first sight resembling T. dermestoides, L., but at once distinguished

from it by the ocular depression extending right across the eyes; more

nearly allied to T. elateroides, Heer (T. gracilis? Woll.), but readily sepa-

rated therefrom by its superior size, the prominence of the lateral frontal

longitudinal ridges, which extend to the anterior margin of the prothorax,

the sinuated sides and prominent posterior angles of the prothorax, especially

in the males, and the somewhat finer punctuation of the interstices of the

elytra.

«Three specimens taken by the Rev. A. Matthews, in company with

T. dermestoides, by sweeping in a plantation near Chiselhurst, in July, 1869,

and shortly after placed in my hands for identification. 2

“ CRYPHALUS PICEH, Ratzeburg, Forst-Insecten, i. p. 163 (1837).

« Allied to C. abietis, Ratzeb., but larger, less convex, the elevations on

the anterior part of the prothorax larger and arranged in five or six tolerably

regular rows, the striz of the elytra distinct, and the interstices, especially

towards the apex, with sparse erect yellow bristles.

“One specimen taken by the Rey. A. Matthews, many years since, in the

vicinity of Weston, Oxon.”

Mr. F. Smith exhibited a large Noctua, apparently an Aplecta, captured

by Mr. J. Gwyn Jeffreys, on the Atlantic, about 220 miles from Nova

Scotia, on the outward voyage. (This has since been identified as the pale

form of Aplecta occulta).

Mr. M‘Lachlan exhibited the remarkable wingless Californian Bittacus,

recently described and figured by him in the ‘ Entomologist’s Monthly

Magazine,’ vol. viii. pp. 100—102, as Bittacus apterus.

Mr. Albert Miiller exhibited a gigantic Californian oak-gall, given to him

by Mr. C. V. Riley, of St. Louis, Missouri. Also the impregnated and un-

impregnated eggs of Libellula flaveola, Linné, the former being whitish in

XXXVI

colour and deposited singly, the latter excluded by a captured female in a

gelatinous yellowish mass.

Prof. Westwood exhibited numerous centuries of the true Formica her-

culeana, Linné, an ant not hitherto considered as British, and stated the

circumstances under which they were found, as follows :—It appeared that,

very recently, a labouring man had brought to a colleague of his, at Oxford,

several birds which he said he had shot in Wytham Wood, on the Earl of

Abingdon’s estate, and these were purchased for the insignificant sum of

two shillings. One of these birds was a great black woodpecker (Picus

martius), which had been considered a very doubtful British species. Upon

dissection the proventriculus of-this bird was found to be crammed with the

ant in question, the specimens being in perfect condition, with the

wings entire, and none had passed into the gizzard. Taking all these facts

into consideration with the freshness of the bird itself, Prof. Westwood

could come to no other conclusion than that the man’s account of how he

became possessed of the bird was true, and hence that the ant was a British

species.

Mr. Miiller stated that he had frequently found this ant in Switzerland,

in winter, in pine-stumps a foot or two in height; and Mr. Smith made

some remarks on Nylander’s account of its habits.

Mr. Jenner Weir utterly disbelieved in Picus martius having ever occurred

in Britain in a wild state, an opinion shared by several of the Members

present.

Prof. Westwood further exhibited two males of Papilio Crino from Ceylon.

In one of these the first and second branches of the median vein were

coated with brown hairs, a peculiarity which was the rule in some species of

Papilio, but which had not been hitherto observed in P. Crino. ‘The other

example had these veins naked, as is usual in the species. He was not able

to ascertain if both specimens were from exactly the same locality.

The Secretary of the Haggerston Entomological Society invited the

Members to attend their annual exhibition of insects on the 23rd and 24th

of November.

Papers read, éc.

Baron Chaudoir communicated the following notes on the specific value

of Eurygnathus parallelus, Chaudoir :—

“In the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1871,

p- 215, Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston contests the right of the insect I described

under the name of Eurygnathus parallelus (Guérin’s Rey. et Mag. de Zool.

1869, p. 121) to constitute a species distinct from Latreillei. As he states

my opinion to be ‘most unphilosophical,’ I feel myself compelled to say a

few words on the subject. No one acquainted with both forms could doubt

that the differences between parallelus and Latreillei, and which have been

remarked and pointed out by the English author as well as by myself, are

XXXVU

far more important and striking than those which, according to Mr. Wol-

laston, distinguish his Pogonus salsipoteus from chalceus, Masoreus arenicola

from Wetterhalii, Pterostichus haligena from longulus ; and if we admit with

him, and those who follow these new theories, that a long isolation has led

to a modification in the form of an insect, we ought certainly to expect

much less similarity between those individuals which live in temperate

Europe and those living in the almost tropical climate of the Canaries, than

between such as inhabit islands so near together as Porto Santo and Deserta

Grande. How much greater still ought to be the difference among indi-

viduals of Pristonychus complanatus from Europe, from Chili, from the

Cape, and from Australia; of Plochionus pallens from France, California

and Java; of Loricera pilicornis from Europe and America, &c.?; but, never-

theless, specimens from countries so distant are nearly identical, while

individuals from the same locality show very often much greater differences.

I do not mean to deny that atmospheric circumstances might influence the

size or coloration of certain species, as we see in several species of Carabus,

Nebria, &c.; but we never find among specimens of diverse stations such

striking and constant differences of form as those which occur between

Eurygnathus parallelus and Latreillei. Why attempt to force nature rather

than admit that there can be in that group of islands two species of

Eurygnathus, just as there are twenty-three species of Calathus, fourteen

of 'T'rechus, seven of Olisthopus, five of Zargus, and three of Broscus ?

“ Mr. Wollaston leans on the authority of our lamented friend, the late

Dr. Schaum, and I am happy to find such homage to his memory; but

Dr. Schaum might have been in error in this case, as he was in that of

Aptinus cordicollis, which he believed for a long time to be identical with

pyrenzus, until, having acquired it from Sturm’s collection, he convinced

himself of the contrary; and I must say that he was always ready to

acknowledge his errors. In general, he lived in a period of reaction, and

was afraid of multiplying species; in order not to fall into the excesses of so

many entomologists who established species on the most trifling and even

imaginary characters.”

Mr. T. H. Briggs read a paper “On the Forms of Zygzena trifolii, with

some remarks on the question of Specific Difference as opposed to Local

or Phytophagic Variation in that Genus.”

20 November, 1871.

A. R. Watuace, Esq., F.Z.S., President, in the chair.

Additions to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—Memoires de la Societe de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de

XXXV111

Genéve,’ tome xxi. lre partie, and ‘Table des Mémoires contenus dans

les tomes i. & xx,;’ presented by the Society. ‘Nouveaux Mémoires de la

Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou,’ tome xiii., livr. 8; ‘ Bulletin

de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 1870,’ Nos. 3 and 4;

by the Society. ‘Additions to the Australian Curculionide,’ part 1;

‘Descriptions of New Genera and Species of Longicornes, including three

new Subfamilies ;’ ‘ Notes on Coleoptera, with Descriptions of New Genera

and Species,’ part i.; by the author, F'.P. Pascoe, Esq.

By purchase ;— Loew, ‘Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten

europiaischen zweifliigeligen Insecten,’ band i1.

Election of Members.

The following gentlemen were balloted for and elected:—C. V. Riley,

Esq., State Entomologist for Missouri, as Foreign Member: Lieut. Barzillai

Lowsley, R.E., of George Town, Demerara, and F’. Raine, Esq., of South

Road, Durham, as Ordinary Members; and W. H. Miskin, Esq., of the

Supreme Court, Brisbane, Queensland, as an Annual Subscriber.

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. Dunning said that since the last meeting of the Society he had been

informed that, at the precise time when the example of the great black

woodpecker (Picus martius), referred to by Prof. Westwood in connection

with Formica herculeana, was said to have been shot near Oxford, several

specimens were exposed for sale in Leadenhall Market, and these were

presumably of Norwegian origin.

Mr. E. Sheppard could not reconcile the occurrence of a gigantic species

of ant, not hitherto known as British, in the crop of a bird the origin of

which was open to doubt, with the idea that this bird had actually been shot

under the circumstances already alleged.

Prof. Westwood said that Mr. C. Robertson, of Oxford, assured him that

he had repeatedly seen the bird in the woods at Clovelly, and Mr. Jackson,

of New College, had observed it in East Devon.

Mr. F. Smith was informed that thirty instances of its occurrence in

Britain had been recorded, and that in one case an example had been shot

by the grandfather of the present Lord Derby.

Mr. Bond asserted that there existed no authentic British example; all

the reported occurrences had been traced and found to be erroneous, save

that of Lord Derby, and much doubt existed concerning this.

Mr. M‘Lachlan suggested that the matter might be set at rest by visiting

the locality in which the bird was said to haye been shot, and finding the

ant.

The discussion ended by Prof. Westwood promising to furnish further

evidence on a future occasion.

XXxX1X

Mr. Bond exhibited a series of small pale examples of Lasiocampa trifolii.

He had made a similar exhibition a year or two since, and Mr. Mitford,

their discoverer, furnished the following information, tending to prove that

they formed, at any rate, a distinct local form. The locality is Romney

Marsh, Kent, and the larvee were first found by Mr. Mitford in May, 1866,

feeding in the tufts of a very wiry grass growing in the shingle above high

water mark; they were again found and bred in May, 1867: in August,

1868, two dead moths, exactly similar, were observed in the same locality :

and in August, 1871, eighteen examples were bred. While hunting for

these larve, Mr. Mitford’s son found smaller caterpillars, which produced

Lithosia caniola, thus showing an entirely new locality for this species.

Mr. Bond further exhibited two remarkable varieties of Clisiocampa

castrensis. One of them, a female, had the left-hand wings shaped like

those of the male, though the insect otherwise showed no tendency to be

gynandromorphous; the other, also a female, had the right-hand under

wing marked and banded as in the upper wing.

Mr. Stainton exhibited, on behalf of Mr. D’Orville, a singular variety of

Agrotis comes, of Hiibner, according to Staudinger’s recent Catalogue,

equivalent to the Triphzena orbona of authors.

Mr. M‘Lachlan exhibited a striking case of mimetic resemblance between

two common North American Libellulide, not very closely allied. These

were Libellula pulchella, of Drury, and Plathemis trimaculata, of De Geer.

In I. pulchella the sexes were nearly similar with respect to markings; in

P. trimaculata they were dissimilar, and the female bore a remarkable

resemblance to either sex of L. pulchella, both in the ornamentation of ate

wings and in the thoracic markings.

Mr. Bates said he had never observed any similar instance, and was

inclined to consider this case as one in which the markings had repeated

themselves, rather than as indicating actual mimicry.

Prof. Westwood suggested that observations should be made as to

whether the female was liable to the attacks of fishes when depositing her

ova, and instanced the case of Ephemera, in which the fish eagerly devoured

the female insect when full of eggs, but rejected the male as affording no

nutriment. A discussion ensued as to the liability of dragon-flies to the

attacks of birds. Mr. F. Smith had seen swallows engaged in the pursuit

of small Agrionide, and Mr. Briggs had witnessed, in the streets of London,

a combat between a sparrow and a large dragon-fly, probably an A%schna,

and in this case the insect overcame the attacks of the aggressor. It was

suggested whether this latter case might not have been an exemplification of

the natural pugnacity of the sparrow, rather than an indication that the bird

attacked the insect with a view to food. Mr. Jenner Weir incidentally

mentioned that he had himself witnessed the fact of an Agrion descending

into the water to deposit its eggs. The President thought the larger species

(the Libellula) might be strong enough to defend itself from some unknown

enemies, whereas the smaller one (the Plathemis) was more at their mercy :

but he thought the matter should be referred to American entomologists to

observe the habits of the two species in question, and report thereon.

Mr, F. Smith exhibited the cocoons of the American Tiphia tarda, of

Say, given to him by Mr. Riley; these were double, there being an outer

flimsy covering and an inner hard case, from which the imago escaped by

making a small hole at one end. He was inclined to believe that the larvee

of Tiphia fed upon those of Aphodius, for he had observed the larve of the

British species in galleries under dried-up cow-dung, but never actually in

the act of devouring the Aphodius larve. Prof. Westwood suggested that

examination should be made of the inner hard cocoon in order to decide

whether it be made of silk or formed from an exudation of the larva.

Mr. Miller called attention to an apparently unrecorded instance of an

insect destructive to green peas. He had last summer observed the outside

of pea-pods showing large whitish blotches, and had found that these were

produced by the attacks of the larvee of a Thrips, fifty or sixty larve often

being engaged upon one pod, and retreating into the adhering calyx when

alarmed.

Mr. M‘Lachlan read observations upon the synonymy of two common

species of European ant-lions, usually known as Myrmeleon formicarius

and formicalynx, showing the discrepancies in the Linnean descriptions in

the various editions of the ‘Fauna Suecica’ and ‘Systema Nature,’ and

proving that Linné more or less confused the two species. The Swedish

entomologists affirmed that the species known as formicalynx by modern

authors (described by Linné as an African insect) was the only ant-lion

occurring in Sweden, and that it was the true formicarius of Linné, whereas

the spotted-winged species, usually known by that name, was not an

inhabitant of their country.

The Secretary announced that Mr. Miskin, of Brisbane, elected that

evening, wished to enter into correspondence with entomologists for the

purpose of exchanging Lepidoptera and Coleoptera.

New Part of ‘ Transactions,’ and of the ‘ Catalogue of British Insects.’

Part iii. of the ‘ Transactions ’ for 1871 (published in August) was on the

table, as was also a further instalment of the proposed general Catalogue of

British Insects, comprising the Aculeate Hymenoptera, compiled by

Mr. F. Smith.

4 December, 1871.

A. R. Watxace, Esq., F.Z.S., President, in the chair.

Additions to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and-thanks yoted to the

donors :—‘ Annales de la Société Entomologique de France,’ 4e Série,

tome x. and Supplement; presented by the Society. ‘Bullettino della

Societa Entomologica Italiana,’ anno iii., trim. 1 & 2; by the Society.

‘Mittheilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft,’ vol. iii.

No. 8; by the Society. ‘L’Abeille,’ tome vii., livr. 4, 5, 6 & 7; tome viii.

livr. 8, 9; by the Editor. ‘The Canadian Entomologist,’ vol. iii., Nos.

7&8; by the Editor. ‘Additamenta et Emendationes ad Catalogum

methodicum et synonymicum Hemipterorum Italiae indigenarum,’ auctore

Antonio Garbiglietti, M.D.; by the Author. ‘ Description de deux Dorcadion

nouveaux et observations sur quelques autres espéces du méme genre,’

par M. A. Chevrolat; by the Author. ‘ Beitrige zur Parthenogenesis der

Arthropoden,’ von C. T. EH. v. Siebold; by the Author. ‘The Zoologist’

for December; by the Editor. ‘ The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine’ for

December ; by the Editors.

By purchase :—‘ A History of the Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland,’

by John Blackwall, F.L.S. Parts I. and II.

Exhibitions, dc.

Mr. 8. Stevens exhibited, on behalf of Mr, Shearwood, an extraordinarily

dark variety of Argynnis Aglaia, captured near Teignmouth.

Mr. Bond exhibited, on behalf of Mr. Doubleday, varieties or malforma-

tions of British Lepidoptera, as follows:—(1) Meliteea Artemis, with the

antenne scarcely more than half the usual length; (2) Pieris rape, female,

with only a faint trace of the second spot on the upper wing; (3) Anchocelis

lunosa, male, taken at sugar, the right-hand upper wing much broader than

the other, and differently formed; (4) Cheimatobia brumata, naturally with

only three wings, and varying in colour and markings. .

Mr. E. W. Janson exhibited a collection of insects, principally Coleoptera,

from the diamond-fields of South Africa.

Mr. Higgins exhibited examples of Tetracha crucigera of M‘Leay,

sent to him from Sydney, being, as he believed, the first seen in

Europe.

Prof. Westwood exhibited a series of drawings and specimens, with the

view of identifying Papilio Thersander of Fabricius, and of proving that the

xhi

figures thereof published by Donovan in the ‘ Naturalists’ Repository,’

although stated to have been copied from Mr. Jones's ‘ Icones,’ were drawn

by Donovan from a torn and mutilated copy of Jones's figure, and completed

from Charaxes Fabius.

Mr. Albert Miiller read the following notes :—

‘Tn reference to the question whether Libellulide are liable to be perse-

cuted by birds, I wish to point out that they have very powerful enemies to

contend with in the Falconide, as Natterer has stated that a species

belonging to this tribe, namely Hypotriorchis rufigularis, Gray, was met by

him late in the evening, after sunset, flying over the tops of figeira (?) trees,

near Sapitiba (Brazil), apparently to catch insects, and that the stomach of

a female contained Libellulidee (Verhandl. K. K. Zool. Bot. G. in Wien.

1868, p. 632). It will be recollected that at the last Meeting Mr.

M‘Lachlan exhibited an instance of mimicry between two species of

American Libellulide, so it may be worth while to inquire if these suffer

similar persecution by birds of prey. At any rate, I throw out the

suggestion.”

Mr. Horne remarked that during his residence in India he had never

seen Libellulide attacked by birds.

Papers read, &c.

Major Parry communicated the following :—

“ Tissapterus Howittanus, H. Deyrolle, Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 98.—

On perusing Prof. Westwood’s recent paper in the ‘ Transactions’ of

the Society, containing descriptions and notices of several new and inte-

resting species of Lucanoid Coleoptera, my attention has been called to a

note the author has appended to his notice of an insect originally described

by himself under the name of Lissotes Howittanus, a most remarkable and

interesting form, pertaining to the family of the Dorcide. ‘This insect has

been subsequently characterised, by M. Henri Deyrolle (loc. cit.), as the

type of a new genus, and published as such in my Catalogue of the Lucanoid

Coleoptera (vide Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870). In the note alluded to in

Prof. Westwood’s publication (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1871, p. 869} I find the

following statement made by the author with reference to the species in

question :—‘ Lissapterus Howittanus (Deyrolle), Parry, Trans. Ent. Soc.

1870, p. 114.—The genus Lissapterus of Deyrolle, to which this insect is

assigned by Major Parry, must be unpublished, since I am unable to find

it either in his Memoir in the Annales de la Soc. Ent. France for

1864, or in his Memoir in the Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. for 1864, vol. ix.’

Had my friend Prof. Westwood turned to page 98 of the publication he

quotes, the information he was anxious to obtain would have been found,

xlin

viz. M. Henri Deyrolle’s characters in eatenso of the genus Lissapterus, and

these characters, I think, fully entitle the species to be raised to generic

rank. I may also state that, although Prof. Westwood infers that the apterous

condition of the insect had induced the generic separation, M. Henri Deyrolle

does not even allude to this particular character in his definition of the

genus.”

Mr. W. F. Kirby communicated a continuation of his “ Synonymic Notes

on Lepidoptera,” as under :—

“In the present paper I have brought together various detached notes

on synonymy, which will perhaps be more useful in the present form than

scattered.

“ Gmelin’s Lepidoptera.— The Lepidoptera Heterocera described by

Gmelin and Zschach are so briefly characterised that their identification

will be a work of time and trouble, and in many cases will be impossible.

Six species are, however, figured, and four of these I was able satisfactorily

to determine at the British Museum this year, with the kind help of

Mr. Butler.

Sphinx immaculata, Gel. i. 5, p. 2386; Sphinx, No. 283, Zschach,

p- 95, t. 3, f. 283 = Chcerocampa capensis, L.

Sphinx Pluto, Gimel.1.¢.; Zschach,1.c. No. 284 = Pergesa Pluto, Fabr.

(vide supra), and may be regarded as the typical figure. :

Sphinx octopunctata, Gel. l.c.; Zschach, 1. c. No. 286 = Cheerocampa

Boerhavie, F’. (= Sph. Thyelia, L. ?)

Phalena Cypria, Gmel. 1. ¢., p. 2403; Bombyx, No. 210, t. 3, p. 210,

Zschach, = and supersedes Hyperchiria incisa, Walk.

I may here remark that Hyperchiria varia, Walk. = Bombyx Io, Fabr.

nec Cram. Cramer’s Attacus Io will therefore require another name; and

I propose to call it Hyperchiria Vala.”

“ Sphinges of Fabricius—Mr. Walker has left several Fabrician Sphinges

undetermined. Sphinx asiliformis, F’., appears to me to be a species of

Thyreus; S. Medea, F’. = Basiothia Idricus, Dru., according to Prof.

Westwood: and S. Clio, F., seems to be synonymous with the same insect.

S. minus, F’., is apparently synonymous with C. Boerhavie. It must

be noted that Fabricius, in his ‘ Mantissa,’ wrongly placed his Pergesa Pluto

(= Thorates, Hiibn.), as synonymous with C. Boerhavie, reversing the

diagnoses, and consequently, in his Ent. Syst., we find C. Boerhavie

described with the diagnosis of P. Pluto prefixed.

“‘Cheerocampa Nessus, Dru. This species is figured by Cramer, t. 226 D,

under the same name, but oddly enough without any reference to Drury, or

to his having himself previously figured a species of Thyreus as Sphinx

Nessus. Fabricius named Drury’s species Sphinx Equestris (Ent. Syst.

xliv

iii. 1, p, 865, n. 29); but the name being applied to Drury’s species, which

was published before Cramer’s, of course falls.

«Papilio hyalinus, Gmel. p. 2259 (cf. Tr. Ent. Soc. 1869, p. 356).

Since the publication of my Cat. Diurn. Lep. I have determined this species

to be identical with Pierella Dracontis, Hiibn., which it will supersede,

though Gmelin’s name is not very appropriate.

“Papilio Acidalia, Weber. This species is synonymous with Neptis

aceris, Lep.

“Morpho Crameri, Kirb. Cat. p. 121, n. 8 (= Telemachus, Cr.

nec Linn.) According to Butler this species = M. Iphicles, Feld. ; but

it also — M. Ulysses, Meerb. Afb. zeldz. Gew. t.14, 20, which is the

oldest name.

“ Athyma Kresna, Moore = Limenitis Jadera, D’Orb. Dict. d’Hist. Nat.,

Atl. Zool. ii. Lep. 4, f. 3 (1849).

“ TLimenitis Camilla, L. In 1764 Linneeus described the sexes of our

English ‘ White Admiral,’ calling the male Prorsa and the female Camilla.

But as he had previously described another species under the name

Prorsa, he properly changed the name of his second species into Sibilla

in 1767. This therefore establishes the name of our species to be correctly

Camilla, L.

“The first author who described the other species was Drury, who

figured it under the name of Papilio Sibilla, var.; but it would be better

to reject this name altogether, as not = Sibilla, L. Scopoli’s name

rivularis, which is usually quoted among the synonyms of this species,

properly belongs, according to Werneburg, to Neptis Lucilla, W. /.,

and is therefore inadmissible. Lucilla, Hsp., is likewise inadmissible ;

and we must therefore adopt Drusilla, Bergstr., as the correct name of

Camilla, W. V.

« Attacus Paphia, L. In 1758 Linneeus gave a diagnosis of this species,

which will apply to several large Bombyces, quoting a figure of Petiver’s

(which is considered to represent Antheraea Dione, Fabr.) and (with doubt)

a bad figure by Catesby of Telea Polyphemus, Cr. But in 1764 he carefully

describes T. Polyphemus under the name of Paphia; and as he describes no

allied species, and referred in 1758 to Queen Ulvica’s Museum as containing

specimens of his Paphia, I think we can hardly hesitate to regard Cramer’s

Polyphemus as identical with it. Cramer figures Antherzea Mylitta, Dru.,

as Paphia, L.; but there can be no doubt that this is an error, although

some of the figures quoted by Linneus in his later works very possibly

represent that species.”

“The date of Cramer's Works.— Cramer’s ‘ Papillons Exotiques’ was

published in parts at intervals. The exact dates are now lost. The

address prefixed to vol. i. bears date Dec. 2, 1774; and vols. i. and ii. are

xlv

dated 1779, vols. iii. and iv. 1782, and the supplementary vol., by Stoll,

1791. Hagen states that parts 1—7 (plates 1—76) were published in 1775,

and part 8 (plates 77 —96, completing vol. i.)in 1776. Mr. Butler, I believe,

possesses a memorandum that plates 1—36 were published in 1775, and

plates 37—48 in 1776. In the part commencing with plate 133, Sulzer’s

‘ Abgek. Gesch. d. Insecten’ is quoted as having been published in the year

1776. If plates 133 and following had not been published later than 1776

it is probable that Cramer would have noticed the book either as ‘just pub-

lished,’ or ‘published this year.’ Fabricius, in his ‘ Genera Insectorum,’

published at the beginning of 1777, quotes only the first four parts, or

plates 1—48. But as Fabricius in 1781 was only acquainted with 216

plates, there is good reason to suppose that he did not receive the separate

parts of Cramer’s work as they were published. In the late Mr. Haliday’s

entomological library, now in the possession of the Royal Irish Academy, is

a complete set of Goeze’s ‘Hntomologische Beytrage,’ including even

vol. iii. part 4 (Leipzig, 1783, pp. xx. 178), unknown to Hagen. The

prefaces are mostly dated ‘ before Michaelmas, 17—,’ and contain notices of

the parts of Cramer which have appeared up to the time of publication.

Unfortunately this inf:rmation is only useful after 1779, when the two first

volumes of Cramer (plates 1—192) were already completed. Between

~ Michaelmas, 1779 and 1780, plates 193—276 appeared; between Michael-

mas, 1780 and 1781, plates 277—336 were published; and the work is

known to have been completed in the following year. A considerable part

of vols. iii. and iy. (certainly all after plate 252, and perhaps several earlier

plates) were edited by Stoll after the death of Cramer. As regards Stoll’s

Supplement, the title-page bears the date 1791; but I have seen a copy in

the original covers, upon which part 1 (plates 1—8) was dated 1787, and

the four subsequent parts 1790, although it is more likely that a part would

have been issued annually; but of this I have no evidence.”

“ Papilio Hyale, L.—I have already (Tr. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 141) ques-

tioned the correct identification of this insect, and I now feel sure that the

insect intended by Linnzus is the female of Papilio Croceus, MYourer.

= Colias Edusa, auct. The Linnean description is as follows (Fn. Suec.

p- 272) :—‘ Pap. Hyale alis integerrimis rotundatis flavis; posticis macula

fulva; subtus puncto sesquialtero argenteo. . . . . Simillimis Palenoni,

sed ale mayis flave. Ale primores flave, apice nigre, nigredine fascia

quasi lutea in duas partes dissecta. Secundarie supra in medio puncto s.

macula ferruginea, cui subtus opposita. Puncta duo argentea approximata,

annulo ferrugineo cincta; altero puncto valde parvo. Antenne et margo

ciliaris alarum rubra ut in sequente [P. Paleeno].’ In favour of the species

intended being the modern Hyale, it may be contended, (1) that the ground

colour is called jlavis; (2) that the Linnean type agrees with this species.

xlvi

I can only reply to the second point from hearsay; but I believe I am

correct in asserting that the Linnean types of Colias are very doubtful.

(Compare Prof. Westwood’s remarks in his ‘ British Butterflies.’) C. Palzeno

is by far the commonest species in Sweden, and there has never been any

doubt about this species, except that some of the older authors who were

unacquainted with it gave Hyale, auet., under this name. Both C. Edusa

and C. Hyale, auct., are of doubtful occurrence in Sweden; and it is very

unlikely that Linneus was acquainted with either of the high northern

species, C. Nastes and O. Hecla. C. Electra was subsequently described

by Johanssen and Linneus as ‘fulvus,’ which has helped to obscure the

other descriptions. The Linnean description states that Hyale is ‘ magis

flavis’ than Paleno. This will not apply to Hyale, awet.; which if any-

thing is less yellow. Then the fascia dividing the dark hind margin is

called ‘lutea,’ which indicates a decided difference in that tint from the

ground colour. This cannot apply to Hyale, auct., but applies very well to

Croceus, female. All the other points in the description would apply equally

well to both species. Hight references are quoted by Linnzus in his

different works for his Hyale. I have consulted six of these, and all refer

to C. Croceus, and every figure quoted represents the female. In one or

two cases (c.g. by Scopoli and Geoffroy) Hyale, auct., is casually noticed as

a var. or as the other sex; but the two species were never properly

separated till Denis and Schiffermiller, in the ‘ Wiener Verzeichniss’ (1775),

gave Hyale, auct., as Paleno, L. (certainly an error) and Croceus as

Hyale, L.; another reason why the name Hyale should be applied, as it was

by nearly all the old authors, to the latter species. The only name which

I can find for Hyale (except Paleeno, which is inapplicable) is Sareptensis,

applied by Staudinger, in his ‘ Catalog’ (1871), p. 5, toa variety. It isa

very inappropriate name for an insect of so extensive a range; but unless

all the misnomers in Entomology are to be rejected, I do not think we can

avoid adopting it.”

1 January, 1872.

A. R. Wattace, Hsq., F.Z.S., President, in the chair.

Additions to the Library.

The following donations were announced, and thanks voted to the

donors :—‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ No. 1380; ‘Catalogue of

Scientific Papers,’ vol. v.; presented by the Society. ‘The Journal of the

Linnean Society,’ Zoology, No. 54; ‘ Proceedings of the Linnean Society of

London,’ Session 1871-72; by the Society. ‘ Coleopterologische Hefte,’

xlvii

No. VIL.; by the Editor, Herr E. v. Harold. ‘L’Abeille,’ 1871, livr. 10,

11; by the Editor, M.S. A. de Marseul. ‘The Zoologist’ for January ;

by the Editor. ‘The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine’ for January; by

the Editors. ‘Exotic Butterflies,’ Part 81; by W. W. Saunders, Esq.

‘The Entomologist’s Annual for 1872;’ by H. T. Stainton, Esq. ‘ Con-

tributions pour servir a l’Histoire Naturelle des Ephémerines,’ No. 8; by

the Author, Dr. Emile Joly.

Papers read, dc.

The Secretary read a communication from Mr. Gould respecting the

question of the liability of Odonata to the attacks of birds, of which the

following is an extract:—‘“I believe that the larger dragon-flies are very

liable to the attacks of birds, and have no doubt that the hobby and kestrel

occasionally feed upon them. With regard to the small blue-bodied species

(Agrionidz) frequenting the sedgy banks of the Thames, I have seen

smaller birds—sparrows, &c.—capture and eat them before my eyes, after

having carefully nipped off the wings, which are not swallowed. This must

take place to a considerable extent, as I have observed the tow-path strewn

with the rejected wings.”

Mr. Miller called attention to a pamphlet just presented to the Society,

viz. ‘ Contributions pour servir a l’Histoire Naturelle des Ephémerines,’ by

Dr. Emile Joly, in which the author asserted his belief that the so-called

Crustaceous genus Prosopistoma is founded upon the immature condition of

species of Ephemeride.

Mr. M‘Lachlan said that he had been made aware by Mr. Crotch of an

inaccuracy in his paper on certain Linnean species of Myrmeleon (Tr. Ent.

Soc. 1871, pp. 441—444). The imaccuracy referred to consisted in his

haying ascribed to Linné the words ‘“ ale obsolete nebulose” in the descrip-

tion of the ant-lion in the first edition of the ‘Fauna Suecica,’ whereas

Linné there says nothing whatever about the perfect insect, the description

referring entirely to the larva and habits. Mr. M‘Lachlan explained that

he had been led into this error through having neglected to notice that the

words were MS. additions by Linné in his own interleaved copy of the

‘Fauna’ in the possession of the Linnean Society. The error did not alter

the bearings of the case.

Mr. F. Smith communicated a long letter from Mr. J. T. Moggridge,

dated from Mentone, November 7th, relating to the habits of certain species

of ants belonging to the genus Aphenogaster. Mr. Moggridge had ob-

served that two species of this genus (A. structor and A. capitata) frequenting

the sandstone slopes of that neighbourhood were, in the winter months, in

the habit of carrying into their nests the seeds of certain late-fruiting plants,

especially of Polygonum vulgare. The nests of A. capitata extend a long

way into the rock; with the aid ofa chisel and hammer these excavations

xlvili

had been traced to their limits, and in one case the channels ended in a

spherical chamber, filled with the seeds of a grass which he had seen the

ants in the act of transporting. Outside the channels there was generally a

heap of the husks of the various seeds, and sometimes one of those heaps

would fill a quart measure. These husks had had their farinaceous contents

extracted through a hole on one side. He purposely strewed near the nests

large quantities of millet and hemp-seeds. After the lapse of a fortnight

many of these seeds, previously conveyed into the nests, had been brought

out again, they having evidently commenced to germinate, and he then

found that the radicle was gnawed off from each seed, so as to prevent

further growth, and, this being effected, the seeds were carried back again.

The cotyledons of germinated seeds were removed from the nests. The,

oily seeds of hemp appeared to be greatly in request. He had not found

any true Myrmecophilous beetles in the nests, but a specimen of a Choleva

was observed, and Aleochara nitida swarmed about the entrance of the

galleries. ‘There were, however, numerous immature examples of a Lepisma,

and a Coleopterous larva, to which the ants paid great attention, an agitated

group of workers seizing one of them when placed near them, removing it

to a place where there was loose friable earth, into which it immediately

began to burrow. The only recent account of the storing of grain by ants that

Mr. Moggridge had been able to find was in the ‘ Encyclopedia Popolare,’

Torino, 1845, in which the explanation given was that the ants used the

seeds for building materials. He promised to make further observations

on these grain-storing species, and to communicate the results to the

Society.

Prof. Westwood called attention to a paper on the same subject by the

Rev. F. W. Hope, published in vol. i. of the ‘Transactions’ of the Society

(pp. 211—213), 1839. i

Mr. Butler read a paper “On certain Species of Pericopides in the

Collection of W. Wilson Saunders, Esq.”

New Part of ‘ Transactions.’

Part iv. of the ‘ Transactions’ for 1871 (published in December) was on

the table.

xlix

ANNUAL MEETING,

22 January, 1872.

A. R. Watxacs, Esq., F.L.S., President, in the chair.

An Abstract of the Treasurer’s Accounts for 1871 was read by Mr.

Dunning, one of the Auditors, and showed a balance in favour of the

Society of £183 13s. 8d.

The Secretary read the following :—

Report of the Council for 1871.

In accordance with the Bye-Laws, the Council presents the following

Report.

The vacancy in the list of Honorary Members, occasioned by the death

of the lamented Lacordaire in 1870, has been filled by the election of the

Baron De Selys-Longchamps, of whom Lacordaire was long a fellow-

townsman.

One composition in lieu of Annual Subscriptions has been received and

invested.

The ‘ Transactions’ and ‘ Proceedings’ for 187] form a volume which the

Council believes will bear favourable comparison with that for any preceding

year. ‘There is an absence of coloured plates, but this is owing to causes

beyond the control of the Council.

The receipts from the sale of our publications show a slight diminution

This the Council believes to be mainly, if not entirely, due to the late

lamentable struggle between two leading contineutal powers, and in its

next Report it looks forward to this item as then presenting a more

favourable aspect.

In November there was published a second part of the Catalogue of

British Insects, comprising the Aculeate Hymenoptera, compiled by

Mr. F. Smith. From the Abstract of Income and Expenditure, given

below, it will be seen that the expense of printing this part has been

defrayed without any special donation devoted to this purpose. But the

Council feels it to be very desirable that the parts of the Catalogue should

appear in more rapid succession, and at intervals equal to the ability of the

various compilers to furnish their MSS. An attempt to effect this is now

being made by an application for extraneous aid.

The Income and Expenditure for the year may be briefly stated as

follows :—

RECEIPTS. PAYMENTS.

dE 4e

Contributions of Members .. 200 Ibs HINEMG So g6cabodo00 badC 15

Sale of Publications ........ 72 ‘Transactions’ & ‘ Proceedings’ 179

Interest on Consols ........ 4 Iblis ono odo Good srsigeaierets 12

IDONBtLONS) elie oe «01s clele)evel ere 20 Rent and Office Expenses.... . 64

Mes rat Meet eS ye sys) -1elereleieroe 14

One part of Catalogue ...... 24

£296 £298

The expenditure has therefore slightly exceeded the receipts, thus almost

annihilating the small balance exhibited in the statement of accounts for

1870. And it will be seen that even this result has only been obtained

from the item of donations, though, with the exception of a sum liberally

subscribed by Mr. W. Wilson Saunders, this item is made up from contri-

butions received from the Rey. A. E. Eaton and Mr. W. Arnold Lewis,

towards the expenses of publishing their memoirs; the thanks of the

Society are also due to Mr. Butler for the plate illustrating one of his

papers.

A consideration of this financial statement can but prove to the Members

that the endeavours of the Council to extend the usefulness of the Society

are powerless without their aid, and that aid it confidently asks and expects.

An addition of twenty new Members to our number would relieve the

Council of much of the anxiety it continually experiences in its endeavours

to maintain for the Society the position it has attained, and would also

enable it to be more liberal in adding to the Library.

22 January, 1872.

The following gentlemen were elected Members of Council for 1872 :—:

Messrs. H. W. Bates, Butler, Grut, Higgins, M‘Lachlan, Marshall,

Miller, E. Saunders, Stainton, I’. Smith, 8. Stevens, A. R. Wallace, and

Westwood.

The following officers for 1872 were subsequently elected :—President,

Prof. J. O. Westwood. Treasurer, Mr. 8. Stevens. Secretaries, Messrs.

M‘Lachlan and Grut. Librarian, Mr. EH. W. Janson.

THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS.

GENTLEMEN,

When I had the honour of addressing you a year

ago, it was my duty to record the heavy loss we had sustained by

the death of two of our members, both Entomologists of the first

rank, and one of them of European reputation. I am now happy

to be enabled to inform you that, during the year 1871, our

Society has suffered no losses by death, either among its home

or foreign members, neither have we to regret the loss to our

science of any Entomologist of especial eminence. Yet the

obituary portion of my address will by no means be a blank,

since we have lost in the past year four entomological authors

of some note, while two others died in the latter part of 1870, but

were not noticed in my last address.

Rudolf Felder, Doctor of Laws, only son of Dr. Felder, Mayor

of Vienna, died on. the 29th of March, 1871, at the early age of

twenty-eight years. He devoted most of his leisure to the study of

his father’s extensive collection of Lepidoptera, and to the pub-

lication, in conjunction with his father, of a variety of valuable

descriptive and classificational papers. Their greatest joint work

is that on the Lepidoptera of the ‘ Novara’ Voyage, which contains

descriptions of nearly a thousand butterflies, the largest portion of

which are illustrated by figures, which are well drawn, beautifully

engraved, and admirably coloured. The descriptions, which are all

in Latin, are understood to be by Rudolf Felder, who seems to have

had a talent for discerning specific differences as well as those more

important structural characters on which natural genera are

founded, and the power to express them in terse and well-chosen

language. By publishing so large anumber of excellent coloured

figures of new butterflies and moths, the two Felders have con-

ferred a benefit upon Entomology which will not soon be forgotten;

and, in the early death of the younger, we have lost one of our

most earnest and most enlightened students of the fascinating but

difficult order of Lepidoptera.

Victor von Motschulsky died at Simferopol on June 5th, 1871.

He was a colonel on the staff of the Russian army, and made very

extensive journeys in an official capacity to the remotest parts of

the vast Russian Empire, as well as to other countries. His first

important work, published more than twenty years ago in the

Transactions of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Peters-

burgh, was on the Coleoptera of Siberia, describing hosts of new

species of Geodephaga, with exact localities. He afterwards

published a large work entitled ‘Die Kifer Russlands.’ His

‘Etudes Entomologiques’ formed a miscellaneous record of his

travels and adventures in the Caucasus, Central and North

America, and other countries, and contained descriptions of great

numbers of new species. He also described and catalogued the

Coleoptera collected by various travellers in the Amur and in

Central Asia, and published several memoirs on the Coleoptera of

California. Of late years he wrote chiefly in the well-known

Moscow ‘ Bulletin,’ monographing various groups of Coleoptera

and describing large numbers of new genera and species. I am

informed by Mr. Bates (to whom I am indebted for most of the

foregoing information) that Motschulsky has a reputation for

carelessness and inaccuracy, for recklessness in introducing new

classifications, and for ignoring the works of his predecessors.

His genera and other new groups are often unintelligible; and it

is therefore not improbable that his great labours as an author

have been on the whole of more injury than benefit to the science

to which he devoted himself. Although almost exclusively a

Coleopterist, he also described many Lepidoptera.

Professor J. T. C. Ratzeburg died at Berlin on the 24th of

October last, in his seventy-first year. He occupied himself

especially with the metamorphoses and the ravages of insects

injurious to forests, and his great work ‘ Die Forstinsekten’ is a

lasting proof of his industry and keen powers of observation.

He also published a popular edition of this work, as well as the

portion relating to the parasitic Hymenoptera (which play so

important a part in checking the ravages of forest insects), in a

hin

separate form. He was also a constant contributor to German

entomological periodicals. He was one of the few Entomologists

who devote themselves, almost exclusively, to a study of the

habits and economy of known insects rather than to the deserip-

tion of new ones; and will always be remembered by the

Coleopterist for his elaborate researches into the Natural History

of the Xylophagous beetles.

On the 18th of December last, Von Heinemann of Brunswick

died suddenly. His work on German and Swiss Lepidoptera is

well known, and he was engaged in correcting the proofs of the

concluding portion at the time of his decease.

Dr. J. P. Rambur died at Geneva on the 10th of August, 1870,

aged 69. When a young man heexplored the Entomology of

Corsica and Andalusia, and in 1842 commenced publishing an

expensive Entomological Fauna of the latter country, but the

issue was soon discontinued. In the same year appeared his

chief work, the volume on Neuroptera, in the ‘Nouvelles Suites a

Buffon.’ He tells us in his preface to this work that the Lepi-

doptera were his favourite study, while the Neuroptera were, of

all insects, the least attractive to him; yet the task so inauspiciously

undertaken was executed in a manner which proves him to have

been a true Entomologist. He paid great attention to structural

details, and especially to secondary sexual characters, which

have since been found so valuable in the classification of other

orders of insects. He laid the foundations of the modern classifi-

cation of the Neuroptera, and, in so doing, made a real advance

in the study of Entomology. He was one of the founders of the

Entomological Society of France.

Dr. Emeric von Frivaldszky of Pesth, a Hungarian Entomolo-

gist and traveller, died during the year 1870, aged 72. He was

more especially known by his investigations of the Entomological

fauna of the Balkan Mountains, and of Asia Minor. He published

several memoirs on the results of his expeditions, but many of

these are in the Magyar language, and remain as sealed books to

most Entomologists. Latterly he industriously investigated the

cave-beetles of his native country.

The Entomological literature of the year possesses many

features of interest, and I propose to notice a few of the more

remarkable works I have met with; after which I shall beg to

liv

offer you some more detailed observations on two special subjects

which are suggested by them.

Giving the precedence to our own “Transactions,” I am happy

to say that the yearly volume just completed contains papers of

ereat originality and value, so as fully to maintain its reputation

as a standard scientific work. The first and most important

paper is the careful and elaborate monograph of the Ephemeride,

by the Rev. A. E. Eaton; beautifully illustrated by six plates,

crowded with details of the structure of the various species. All

the known species of the family, 178 in number, are fully de-

scribed, and immense research has been bestowed upon the

literature and synonymy.

Three papers, by Messrs. Hewitson and Butler, describe new

species of butterflies, while Professor Westwood, Messrs. Bates,

Baly, Sharp, Wollaston, and C. O. Waterhouse, describe new

Coleoptera. Mr. Albert Miiller discusses the dispersal of non-

migratory insects by atmospheric agencies, and adduces evidence

to show that this is constantly going on, and is one of the regular

means by which the existing geographical distribution of insects

has been brought about.

Our honorary member, the Baron de Selys-Longchamps, has

given us, in a short paper, a summary of the group of dragon-flies

as at present known; from which it appears that there are 190

genera and 1357 species, including some in our collections which

are not yet described.

Mr. B. T. Lowne has contributed a curious and suggestive

paper on “Immature Sexuality and Alternate Generation in

Insects,’ in which he discusses the phenomena of apterous

females and largely developed horns and other appendages in the

males, as directly due to sex. He doubts the action of sexual

selection in producing the horns and other ornaments of beetles,

and maintains that the apterous and larval forms of the existing

higher insects are all acquired, and not due to descent from

ancestral larval forms.

Mr. W. Arnold Lewis has given us a very important critical

paper on the arrangement of Lepidoptera, and on the use and

abuse of synonymic lists and other catalogues. Not only do his

criticisms appear to me to be, for the most part, sound and of

great value, but he has treated one of the dryest and most

uninviting of subjects with so much skill and such command of

language, as to make it not only intelligible and interesting, but

even amusing. His views on nomenclature have caused some

discussion, and they have an important bearing on a subject I

shall refer to presently. The remaining papers are—‘“‘ On the

forms of Zygena Trifolii,’ by Mr. Briggs, in which the question

of species and variety is discussed; and one by Mr. McLachlan

on the identification of three species of Myrmeleon described by

Linneeus.

The Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, published

during the past year, contain few Entomological papers. Part iii.

of the volume for 1870 (which appeared in 1871) contains a list

of acollection of North Indian butterflies by Mr. Butler, a note

on abnormal neuration in an Acrea by the same author, and two

papers on spiders by Mr. O. Pickard Cambridge. The two parts

already published for 1871 contain another paper on spiders by

the last-named gentleman, and four papers on butterflies by

Mr. Butler, as well as one by Mr. W. 8. Atkinson on the same

group. The Journal of the Linnean Society contains several

Entomological papers :—on new forms of Ascalaphidz and on the

classification of the Ascalaphide, by Mr. M‘Lachlan; Contri-

butions to a Knowledge of Curculionide, pt. 1., by Mr. Pascoe;

a Note on Mr. Murray’s Coleopterous Faun, by Mr. Trimen;

a Catalogue of Aculeate Hymenoptera and Ichneumonide of India

andj the Eastern Islands, by Mr. F’. Smith, with some introductory

observations by myself; Observations on a Light-giving Coleop-

terous Larva, by Dr. Hermann Burmeister; and Sir John

Lubbock’s paper on the Origin of Insects. The ‘Annals and

Magazine of Natural History’ contains no less than ten papers on

insects in the last year’s volumes, of which the following isa

list:—On Insects inhabiting Salt Water, by Dr. Packard; De-

scriptions of new Butterflies, and of a new Paphia, by Mr. O.

Salvin ; List of Coleoptera from Old Calabar, by Mr. A. Murray;

New Species of Lepidoptera, by Mr. Butler; Life in the Wyan-

dotte Cave, in which several cave-insects are described, by

Professor Cope; Catalogue of Zygopine, Additions to Australian

Curculionide, New Genera and Species of Longicorns, and Notes

on Coleoptera, by Mr. Pascoe; Spiders of Montreal, Upper

Canada, by Mr. John Blackwall; and Coleoptera of St. Helena,

by Mr. T. Vernon Wollaston. The ‘ Zoologist’ contains Notes

on Chalcidide, by Mr. Francis Walker. The ‘Entomologists’

lvi

Monthly Magazine’ has contained, during the past year, the usual

quantity of valuable and interesting matter on every branch and

aspect of British Entomology, and has also contained a number

of papers of wider interest, treating of classification, or describing

new species of insects. Among the contributors of this class are

Messrs. Stainton, Butler, Ward, and Scudder, on Lepidoptera ;

Messrs. Sharp, Bates, Waterhouse, and Reed, on Coleoptera ;

and Mr. M‘Lachlan, on Neuroptera and Trichoptera.

Mr. Hewitson’s beautiful illustrations of butterflies have

regularly appeared throughout the last two years, and fully

maintain their high reputation for delicacy of execution and

superb colouring. Long may he live to continue them! till

they form a monument of his patient skill and enthusiastic love

of nature, unequalled by the work of a single individual in any

age or country. Our stores of Lepidoptera have, however, been

of late so rapidly increasing that no pencil can keep pace with

the supply, and we have all to thank Mr. Butler for helping on

the good and useful work of accurately delineating the new and

puzzling forms that crowd upon us. In his ‘Lepidoptera Exotica’

he has boldly essayed a new style of art in this country, that of

illustrating species by colour-printing. ‘Ten quarterly parts have

now appeared, in which a large number of new butterflies and

moths are, always accurately and often beautifully, delineated.

As specimens of art these will not, of course, compete with the best

hand-work, but as representations of Nature they are all that can

be desired; and some of the last issued plates are so beautiful,

and so well represent the texture of the lepidopterous wing, that

they may be preferred by some to the superior brilliancy of hand-

colouring. It must be remembered that the expense of such

a publication (where the demand for copies is limited) is very

great, and in such a case there can be little or no advantage

over the old method in point of cost; but the experience in

this mode of work now being gained, will, it is to be hoped,

lead to its being applied to publications where a large number

of copies are required, and where the saving of expense will

be a real boon to many a working naturalist. Before dismissing

Mr. Butler’s meritorious work, I would, however, protest, both on

the score of utility and of harmonious effect, against the introduc-

tion of brilliant flowers among the figures of butterflies, ‘This has

been tried in one plate, which I trust will be the last of its kind.

lvii

As an example of the importance Entomology may assume in

anew and partially cultivated country, I may call your attention

to a Report on the Noxious and Beneficial Insects of the State

of Missouri, made to the Missouri Board of Agriculture by the

State Entomologist, Mr. Charles V. Riley, a gentleman of English

birth and education, who, you will recollect, attended one of our

meetings during the past year. In this Report, containing the

matter of a fair-sized volume, we have popular and lively, yet

accurate descriptions of a large number of noxious insects, with

full accounts of their transformations ‘and general economy, and of

the various methods of guarding against their ravages. The

vine in America seems especially liable to attack, the ravages of

an Aphis, three Coleoptera and seven Lepidoptera being here

described, while this is only a third of the series of articles (not yet

concluded) on insects injurious to the vine. This superabundance

of enemies is due, no doubt, to the fact that numerous species of

grape, and of several allied genera of plants, are indigenous to the

United States, and there are thus a host of insects ready

to seize upon the more luxuriant and juicy cultivated vines. In

the latter part of the Report, under the heading ‘Innoxious

Insects,’ we have a most excellent account of two common

American butterflies, the Danais Archippus, Fabr., and the

Limenitis disippus, Godt., in which the subject of mimicry, as

illustrated by these two species, is very clearly treated. Mr.

Riley’s own experiments on the Archippus butterfly adds some-

thing to our knowledge of this interesting subject. He found

that neither turkeys, chickens, toads, nor snakes, would touch the

brilliantly-coloured larva, and he observed that these larvee have

a pungent and nauseous odour, especially perceptible when a few

are confined in a box. In the imago state the odour is even

stronger. The larva is not wholly free from enemies, for though

hymenopterous parasites have never been observed to attack it

yet it is often killed by the dipterous Tachina. The caterpillar

of the Limenitis, on the other hand, is attacked by, at least, three

parasites, two hymenopterous and one dipterous. Other facts of

importance are, that the larve of the Limenitis disippus are

protected by their colours, closely resembling the various willow-

leaves on which they feed, while the pup resemble birds’ dung,

more especially for the first few hours after their transformation ;

and that Mr. Otto Lugger, a gentleman employed on the U.S. Lake

lviii

Survey, once saw a bird dart after an Archippus butterfly, seize it,

and immediately drop it, uneaten. Mr. Lugger picked up the

butterfly, and was much puzzled at the time to account for this

singular action of the bird.

A characteristic feature of the past year is the number of

valuable catalogues, lists, and monographs that have appeared.

Our own Society has issued, as a second instalment of the

‘Catalogue of British Insects, a Catalogue of the Aculeate

Hymenoptera, by Mr. Frederick Smith. Mr. Edward Saunders

has given us a compact and useful catalogue of all the described

species of the extensive and beautiful family of Buprestide, and

has furnished it with an excellent index.

The Vicomte de Bonvouloir has published the first part of his

long-expected Monograph of the Hucnemide, in which he has given

careful descriptions of the species in this difficult family, accom-

panied by exquisitely-engraved figures of nearly half of them. A

few years ago Lacordaire enumerated only 70 described species :

the present Monograph contains 450.

Dr. Thorell, one of the Professors of Zoology in the University

of Upsala, is publishing an elaborate critical work on Huropean

spiders. The book is written in English, and the first part,

which appeared in 1870, contains some observations on Zoological

nomenclature, to which subject the author has devoted much

attention. He refers to the old British Association rules with

general approval, but differs from them on some important points.

He holds the law of priority as absolute, under a few definite

restrictions. 1. There must be definition or description, and

publication. A recognizable figure of a species he considers

sufficient, but of a genus there must be a description pointing out

the generic characters. He says, ‘“‘“A new genus that has been

distinguished merely by referring to some particular species of an

older genus as its type, without in any way indicating which of

the characteristics of the species is to be considered as the mark

of the new genus, no one can indeed be looked upon as bounden

to acknowledge.” He adds, ‘‘ Nevertheless it appears to me

advisable to do so, especially if the species referred to deviate in

any generally known manner from the typical species of the old

genus, and always if the new genus has been once received and

acknowledged.” 2. As to how far back the application of the law of

lix

priority should extend, he has some very important observations.

The binomial system of nomenclature was, he says, fully

and distinctly propounded by Linneus in the ‘ Philosophia

Botanica,’ published in 1751, and there can be no reason whatever

why authors who adopted and systematically applied it should be

set aside, because Linneus himself did not apply it to the whole

animal and vegetable kingdoms till 1758. An example occurs in

Dr. Thorell’s group, Clerck having in 1757 applied it with

perfect consistency in his ‘ Aranea Suecici.’ His law therefore

is enunciated as follows :—‘ that in determining the priority of a

specific name notice should be taken only of those works in which

the Linnean binomial nomenclature is exclusively and con-

sistently employed.” This rule has the great advantage of being

independent of date; it goes to the root of the matter and would

have some very important results in the determination of

synonymy, and I cannot but regret that it was not adopted in the

amended British Association rules, instead of the illogical

compromise of the 12th Ed. of the ‘Systema Nature,’ with

exception as regards two authors, Artedi and Scopoli. An

important complement of this simple rule is, that all writings

published subsequently to that epoch in which that nomenclature

has not at all or not consistently been employed, count for

nothing. The same date, our author thinks, should apply to

generic as to specific names, both being characteristic of the

binomial nomenclature, and it being impossible, if we go back

earlier, to determine what are to be considered as truly generic

names.”

3. Dr. Thorell would not prohibit the employment of the same

generic name in Zoology and Botany, such a restriction being

unnecessary, and leading to wholesale alteration and consequent

confusion.

4. He is a strict purist, and alters the termination of every

name he considers to be not classically constructed. He admits

that there is often difference of opinion on these points, but does

not seem to consider that the consequent confusion and instability

of nomenclature is as great an evil as classical inaccuracy.

Our author agrees with most zoologists in rejecting the

plan used by botanists, of giving as authority for a species the

man who placed it in the last new genus, remarking that he is

“unable to discover what advantages that custom can offer.” He

well observes that it conceals the epoch when a species was first

made known, and it also prevents us from going direct to the

work where we shall find the species first described.

The body of Dr. Thorell’s work is devoted to a thorough

examination of the literature and classification of Huropean

spiders, with especial reference to two important Monographs, the

authors of which were each unacquainted with the other's works.

These are, Westring’s ‘ Aranei Suecice,’ and Blackwall’s ‘ British

Spiders,’ which, although largely treating of the same insects

differ widely in their nomenclature. Both works were published

about the same time, and they exhibit a remarkable coincidence

in the number of species inhabiting the two countries, Sweden

having 308, Great Britain and Ireland 804. A considerable

number of southern forms occur with us which are wanting in

Sweden, the latter country of course possessing a corresponding

proportion of northern and continental forms which we have not.

The portion of the work already published is devoted to a critical

examination of the genera, both as regards synonymy, classification

and structural characters; the species will, I suppose, be after-

wards treated in a similar manner.

Of aless extensive scope is Dr. Hagen’s ‘Monograph of the

fresh water Astacidee of North America, which, besides going

into interesting anatomical details, brings out a curious fact in

geographical distribution, analogous to what occurs in some

groups of insects. These crawfishes consist of two well-marked

genera, Cambarus and Astacus. Cambarus contains 32 species,

and is entirely confined to North America, east of the Rocky

Mountains. Astacus, on the other hand, is confined to the Pacific

coast of America, but also extends into Europe and Asia.

Another work, which may be considered a new one, is Stau-

dinger and Wocke’s new edition of their Catalogue of European

Lepidoptera, which is now extended to include all the species of

the Europeo-Asiatic Fauna. ‘The limits defined are nearly, but

not quite, the same as those of Dr. Sclater’s Palearctic region.

They extend from Iceland to the mouth of the Amur river, going

only as far south as 45° or 50° latitude in the east, while in the

west of Asia there is an extension as far as 30° in South Persia.

The south-east of Persia, towards Affghanistan, is said to show a

transition towards the Indian Fauna. Syria and Palestine are

wholly European, while Arabia and Egypt should probably be

lxi

excluded. All the rest of North Africa, Madeira and the Canaries

are considered as forming part of Europe, while the Cape de

Verdes are African. The polar regions are said to be wholly

European as far as South Labrador and Canada, where North

American forms begin to prevail. A very good feature in this

catalogue is the separation of accidental variations from true local

varieties or races. The former are called “aberrations,” the

latter only “varieties.” Those forms which some naturalists

class as varieties, while others consider them to be good species,

are termed “ Darwinian species.” Of all these kinds of varieties

a brief Latin diagnosis is given. ‘The number of species in this

extended catalogue is 6062; and in the index each genus, species,

synonym, and variety, is entered, and severally distinguished by

differences of type.

In the preface Dr. Staudinger gives his views as to rules of

nomenclature at some length, and it will be of interest to compare

them with those of Dr. Thorell, and with our own. His rules are

as follows :-—

1. Species should be designated by a double Latin name, as first

adopted by Linneus in the 10th edition of the ‘Systema

Nature.’

On the question of taking the 12th edition, instead of the 10th,

as the starting-point for specific names, he epigrammatically

remarks: “This way of acting is illogical, and endangers the

stability of specific nomenclature; it is illogical because it does

not begin at the beginning; it is dangerous because it starts with

an exception, and a denial of justice.”

2. The names of species should be in Latin or latinized.

Staudinger objects to such names as Amphionycha knownothing,

and claims the right to latinise them, retaining the original

name for purposes of reference. At this one ground of alteration,

however, he takes his stand, and will admit of no other whatever.

He says, that if specific names are altered on philological

erounds, they may be equally altered for errors in botany,

geography, &c., and all stability will be at an end. As an extreme

case he cites the following corrections of a supposed erroneous

name. Agrotis nictymera, Boisd., was altered by Herrich-Schiiffer

into Nychtemera, by Duponchel into Nyctymera, by Guenée into

Nyctimera, by Zeller into Nychthemera, and by Speyer into

Nyctimena. He would consider every specific name, once given

and duly latinized in termination, as a proper name, write it with

a capital letier, and treat it as unalterable. His collaborateur

Wocke, however, does not agree with him, and therefore he does

not fully carry out his views in this catalogue.

3. The first describer of a species should have his name

attached to it, even though it be removed to another genus.

He protests, like Dr. Thorell, against the practice of botanists

and of many American zoologists in this respect.

4. Museum and catalogue names, without any recognizable

descriptions, are void.

5. Every species should absolutely preserve the name under

which it has been first described, in accordance with the Linnean

nomenclature.

6. The same specific name may be employed in genera suffi-

ciently remote from each other.

7. A description founded on two or more species can only in

exceptional cases be applied to either of them.

8. Species described from the larve or pup only can not be

retained should the perfect insect differ much from known

species.

Gemminger and Harold, whose great Catalogue of Coleoptera

has been suspended owing to the Franco-Prussian war, but will it

is hoped shortly be resumed, carry out the law of priority with

sreat rigour; adopting the oldest name, however bad the descrip-

tion may be, and although the identification is only possible by

reference to the type specimen. But they do not admit the

validity of any descriptions in fugitive papers or price catalogues.

They ave purists in orthography, taking exactly the opposite view

to the German Lepidopterist cataloguers, and unmercifully alter

all names which they conceive to exhibit unclassical construction

or erroneous orthography.

One of the most important, if not the most important, of the

entomological works of the year 1871 is, undoubtedly, Mr. W. F.

Kirby’s ‘Synonymie Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera;’ a

volume of 690 pages on the general plan of Gemminger and

Harold’s ‘Catalogue of Coleoptera.’ It is issued as a complete

work, containing all, or very nearly all, the species and varieties

of butterflies described down to the date of publication, with very

full synonymy accompanied by dates, and with a column of

localities. There is no enumeration of the species either in the

lxiii

genera or families, and this is an omission; but an estimate by

counting a number of pages taken at random gives between nine

and ten thousand as the number of species and varieties; and the

full and excellent index has about twelve thousand separate

references, and appears to contain every generic and specific

name, and almost every synonym and variety mentioned in the

volume. That such a laborious work, and one of such great use

to entomologists, should have been undertaken by so young a

man as Mr. Kirby, and successfully completed in so short a time

and under the disadvantage of residence in Dublin, where no

extensive collections or complete entomological libraries exist,

excites our admiration and respect, and proves the author to be

not unworthy of the honoured name he bears.

In so extensive a work errors are unavoidable, and the fact that

they are discovered and pointed out can hardly be said to detract

materially from its merits or its value, if the author does all in

his power to circulate among his readers lists of such errata.

Every one will then have it in his power to make the needful

corrections, each in its proper place, and the work may thus be soon

rendered perfect as a book of reference. Leaving such inevitable

errors to be discovered by those who use the work, I propose to

make a few remarks on some more general topics suggested by

this catalogue and by the other works of the like nature to which

I have referred.

I would first note the omission of any statement in the preface

of what systematic arrangement has been followed. It appears

to differ in many points from all previous arrangements, and Mr.

Kirby thus lays himself open to the very just criticism of Mr.

Lewis, that a catalogue is not the right place to introduce a new

classification, still less to introduce it without note or comment,

reason or explanation.

The most novel, and, as many will think, the worst feature of

the book, is the entire revision of the generic nomenclature (not

of the synonymy merely, as stated in the preface), in accordance

with a series of rules selected from those issned by the British

Association and published in their Report for 1865. This

revision has the effect of abolishing scores of old and familiar

names, and replacing them by others altogether new to the

majority of Lepidopterists. This is done, either because the

name is supposed to be preoccupied in some other branch of

lxiv

Natural History, or because an earlier generic name than that in

common use has been discovered. Now although these are valid

reasons for altering a name in some cases, they are not always so,

and I think we should refuse to accept the decisions of any author

who is not governed by the limitations which the British Asso-

ciation Rules place on the alteration of names. It is even

questionable whether the author of a catalogue is not going

beyond his province in making any corrections or alterations of

names in use, for any reason whatever. It may be said that he

should simply record the facts, adopt the nomenclature in use,

whenever there is uniformity among living authors, and point out

if he likes in foot-notes his belief that such a name should be

altered for certain reasons. He should consider himself an

adviser in such matters, not a judge. I will take one example,

almost the first that struck me on turning over the pages of Mr.

Kirby’s Catalogue, in order to show the mischief of such altera-

tions, and how little they help to promote stability of nomenclature.

We find, at p. 303, the old genus Erycina of Fabricius, which for

sixty years has stood without a synonym, and which is familiar

to every one acquainted with South-American butterflies or with

the illustrations of Hewitson, Saunders, and Felder, entirely

abolished in favour of a much later name, Ancyluris, because the

original name is said to be preoccupied. Yet, according to the

British Association Rules, the name Erycina must stand; Rule 10,

which applies to this case being as follows: “A name should be

changed which has before been proposed for some other genus in

zoology or botany, or for some other species in the same genus, when

still retained for such genus or species.” The last clause of this rule

saves our old and admired friend Erycina from the indignity of an

alias, for although that name was given to a genus of Mollusca by

Lamarck in 1805, it has long been abolished as an unintelligible

“omnium +gatherum,” and the species distributed in various

Linnean and other genera. Mr. Kirby, however, prints the rule

in his preface, omitting the last clause, and by doing so has been

led to make alterations which those rules in their entirety do not

justify, and which therefore cannot stand.* But by far the most

* BEyen should it be necessary to alter a name on account of preoccupation, the

change made should be as small as possible, and should be effected by altering a

single letter or the termination—not by the introduction of a totally new name,

such as is usually given by Mr. Kirby. Thus if Paphia, Fabr., which has been in

Ixv

important and most numerous alterations are caused by adopting

the names of an author who has long been purposely ignored as

an authority for genera, both by English and Continental Lepi-

dopterists; I of course allude to Hiibner. Such old names as

Chionobas, Agraulis, Kresia, Godartia, Adolias, Polyommatus,

Leptalis, Terias, Callidryas, Thestias, and Anthocharis, with

many more, are changed for others which most of us have never

heard of, and which are generally to be found in no other work

than Hiibner’s obsolete and useless catalogue. Yet this wholesale

change does not seem to be warranted by the Rules of the British

Association, which indeed Mr. Kirby in his work altogether

ignores. Rule 12 says: “A name which has never been clearly

defined in some published work should be changed for the earliest

name by which the object shall have been so defined.” And in

the explanatory remarks it is said, “‘ Definition properly implies

a distinct exposition of essential characters, and in all cases we

conceive this to be indispensable.” Now this rule merely embodied

the feeling and the practice of naturalists, and it had been acted

on for nearly thirty years before it had been formally enunciated,

in this very case of Hiibner, whose work had been systematically

set aside as an authority by most Huropean-entomologists because

it was felt that his so-called genera were mere guesses founded on

faciés alone,—happy guesses no doubt sometimes,—but as fre-

quently wrong as right, and wholly without such definition as was

held, even in his own day, to be required to constitute a new

genus. Boisduval expressly states this, at p. 153 of his ‘ Species

Général des Lepidoptéres,’ and his non-recognition of Hiibner’s

genera has been followed in almost all the great systematic works

which have since been published. If we take Hiibnev’s first four

genera, and the characters he gives for them, we shall be able to

judge of the reasons for this course.

They are as follows :

Hymenitis . . Upper wings half-banded.

Ithomia . . . Upper wings one-banded.

uninterrupted and exclusive use for sixty-four years, is really preoccupied, it would

be much better to alter it to Paphius, and still quote Fabricius as the authority, than

change it to so totally dissimilar a name as Ansa of Hiibner. A more recent example

is Idiomorphus, which might have been similarly modified and retained instead of

being changed to Bicyclus, Kirby. No law requires this total change, while every

consideration of convenience, no less than of justice, is better satisfied by a slight

modification.

Ixvl

Oleria . . . Upper wings twice banded.

Thyridia . . . Both wings banded.

Such a mode of defining genera, although it has the merit of

being simple and symmetrical, is undoubtedly superficial ; and it

can only be by the purest accident that a group so characterised

can correspond in extent to any real genus. It is therefore

not surprising that two of these four Hiibnerian groups of species

do not constitute modern genera; yet, because one of the rejected

names, Oleria, has been applied by Mr. Bates to an allied genus

characterised by him, Mr. Kirby thinks it necessary to give it a

new name, because it does not correspond to the Oleria of

Hiibner, again breaking the British Association law. In Mr.

Kirby's own work, we find Hiibner’s condemnation in almost

every page, in the utter want of agreement between his groups

and modern genera. ‘The modern restricted genus Heliconius, for

instance, contains species belonging to seven Hiibnerian genera ;

Pieris comprises five, and Thecla twelve of these hap-hazard

sroups; while, in other cases, the species comprising Hiibner’s

groups are divided among several quite unrelated modern

genera.

Now here, it seems to me, the case is very strong against the

practice of those who, like Mr. Kirby, advocate the adoption of

Hiibner’s generic names. It is not that those who hold opposite

views seek to annul or over-ride the law of priority by any self-

created law, or by individual opinion; but it is a case in which

there has been hitherto almost a universal agreement, fully

supported by the tenor of the British Association Rules, that the

names sought to be reinstated rank as mere catalogue names for

want of proper definition, and should, therefore, never be quoted.

The idea of justice to the first namer or describer of a species is

sometimes appealed to; but the law of priority is founded on

no such expressed idea, but rather on the universal practice of

mankind, which always upholds stability of nomenclature, and

requires cogent reasons of convenience or beauty to sanction an

alteration. Intelligible language is wholly founded on stability

of nomenclature, and we should soon cease to be able to understand

each other’s speech, if the practice of altering all names we

thought we could improve upon, became general. It was because

this practice of reckless alteration of names had become so prevalent

among naturalists, that it was found necessary to declare that

Ixvu

names once given and published were thenceforth unchangeable.

It is rather unfortunate that the laws which govern the formation

of languages in general were not more consulted, for it would

then have been seen that the proper rule to adopt would have

been unchangeability of names in use, rather than priority of

date, which latter rule ought only to have*been brought in, to

decide on the claims of two or more names in use, not to revive

obsolete names never in use or long ago rejected. Yet even as a

matter of justice, it may be maintained that we should recognise the

careful and elaborate definitions of a Doubleday or Westwood,

rather than the childish guesses of a Hiibner; and should quote

the former as the authority for the genus, even should they, out

of courtesy, have adopted the names of the latter. I think too,

that until they can agree among themselves to a new set of rules,

English Naturalists should feel themselves bound to follow the

rules adopted and confirmed by their national scientific Associa-

tion, and strongly oppose any alterations of nomenclature not

sanctioned by those rules. We are all agreed that change and

instability of nomenclature are great evils. We should insist,

therefore, that whenever one of these rules can be so interpreted

as to avoid change, it should be done ; and whenever there is any

doubt as to the interpretation, the benefit of the doubt should be

given to all names which have been in general use for a number

of years. If this view is adopted, the proper course to be taken

is to reinstate every name which of late years has been made to

give place to one of Hiibner’s, and further, to treat the

‘Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge’ as a mere catalogue

which can never be quoted as an authority for genera. There is

one other class of alterations made by Mr. Kirby for which I can

find no rule, and which seems to me to have no advantages

Whenever the genus from which a family name has been formed

is abolished for any cause, he at once gives a new name to the

family. Thus, having abolished Eurygona, Bois., in favour of

Euselasia, Hiibn., he changes Mr. Bates’ sub-family Eurygonine

into Euselasiine, and, for the same reason, our old friends the

Erycinide are rebaptised Lemoniide. It will be remembered

that for some years the genus Nymphalis was expunged from our

catalogues, but no inconvenience or confusion was caused during

that epoch by retaining the old family name of Nymphalide.

Looking at the varied opinions expressed and acted upon by

Ixvili

the several authors I have quoted, it becomes evident that we

shall never obtain complete uniformity and permanence of

nomenclature, as long as each writer of a monograph or compiler

of a catalogue thinks himself at liberty to use it asa medium

for expressing his own views on the subject. To enact laws is of

little use if we have no judges to interpret them. I have long been

of opinion that we require a tribunal to decide authoritively what

changes of nomenclature shall be allowed; and though I have

often been told this is impracticable, I cannot yet see the

impracticability. As an example of what I mean, I would propose

that the Natural-History Societies of each of the great nations of

Europe and America should appoint one or more well-qualified

naturalists to form a Judicial Committee of Nomenclature, all

these societies, of course, agreeing to abide by the decisions of such

committee. It might meet once a year, or even less frequently

(as much business might be done by means of a Secretary), when

any one could lay before it cases of non-accordant or erroneous

nomenclature, with reasons and authorities for proposed changes.

Its decisions, once given, would be adopted in the publications of

all the societies, and this would soon lead to their universal adoption.

Authors working at monographs or catalogues would naturally

submit to it all proposed alterations of existing nomenclature,

and would hardly run the risk of injuring the sale of their

books by acting in opposition to the judgments given. All cases

in which an important principle was involved should be decided

only after submitting it to every member of the committee. The

decisions of the committee need not be absolutely final, because

new evidence might turn up, or the application of a rule might

involve consequences not foreseen; but the confusion caused by

the reversal of a decision would be carefully considered, and such

reversals should not be made, except by a larger absolute majority

of the committee than that which gave the previous decision.

Such a committee would, of course, lay down certain principles

and rules for its own guidance, calculated to secure a uniform and

permanent scientific nomenclature of natural objects ; and with the

great facilities for communications that now exist, I cannot believe

that there would be any great difficulty in its practical working ;

still less can I believe that its decisions would not be respected,

and that it would not help us to obtain, much earlier than we

otherwise should do, a uniform and permanent nomenclature.

lxix

The interesting problem of what is the true ancestry of Insects,

and which line was taken in their progress of development, is one

which has of late been much discussed. Sir John Lubbock,

following Brauer, indicates Campodea, a curious larval form,

allied to Thysanura and Collembola, as the nearest existing

representative to the ancestral type of the Insecta. The mouth

of these insects is neither truly suctorial nor mandibulate, and

thus affords a starting point for special modification in both direc-

tions. The larve and pupe of the higher insects are certainly not

mere lower stages in the progressive development of the imago, as

was once supposed, but are highly specialized forms, which,

during a long series of ages, have diverged so as to become

adapted to widely different modes of life. They are not likely,

therefore, to represent ancestral types, which must rather be

looked for in certain exceptional developmental forms, such as

the hexapod larve of Meloé for example. Dr. Packard en-

deavoured, nearly two years ago, to carry the solution of the

problem one step further back. He believes that the Insecta and

Crustacea have been independently evolved from some low

annulate animals; the Insecta passing through a rudimental

form to which he gives the name Leptus, analogous to the well-

known Nauplius form of Crustacea. The Myriapods he believes to

have descended from a Leptiform animal, something like the

young of Pauropus ;—the Hexapods from one more resembling

the young of Stylops and Meloé, and certain low Orthopterous

and Neuropterous larve. Dr. Anton Dohrn is now engaged in a

systematic study of this subject, taking, as his basis, the maxim

that the development of the individual is a short and incomplete

statement of the development of the race; and working out the

embryology of as many types as possible, so as to discover how

far their earliest stages agree or disagree. He has hitherto

principally occupied himself with the Crustacea, but seems

inclined to revive the old idea of the possibility of finding

homologies between the Annulose and Vertebrate types. The

Russian anatomist Kowalewsky holds somewhat similar views,

but they seem to be founded on the supposed histological identity

of certain internal organs and tissues, rather than on any ac-

curately determined homologies in the great structural features

of each sub-kingdom.

Amid all the discussions to which this subject has given rise, it

lxx

is to me surprising that one of the most ingenious and remarkable

theories ever put forth on a question of Natural History has not

been so much as once alluded to. More than six years ago,

Mr. Herbert Spencer published, in his ‘ Principles of Biology,’ a

view of the nature and origin of the Annulose type of animals, which

goes to the very root of the whole question; and, if this viewisasound

one, it must so materially affect the interpretation of allembryologi-

caland anatomical facts bearing on this great subject, that those who

work in ignorance of it can hardly hope to arrive at true results.

I propose, therefore, to lay before you a brief sketch of

My. Spencer’s theory, with the hope of calling attention to it, and

inducing some of you to take up what seems to me to be a most

promising line of research; and, although the question is one on

which I feel quite incompetent to form a sound judgment, I shall

call your attention to the light which it seems to throw on some

of the most curious anomalies of insect structure.

The theory itself may be enunciated in very few words. It is,

that insects, as well as all the Annulosa, are not primarily

single individuals, but that each one is a compound, representing

as many individuals as there are true segments in the body, these

individuals having become severally differentiated and specialized

to perform certain definite functions for the good of the whole

compound animal.

Mr. Spencer first calls attention to the fact, that among the

undoubtedly compound animals (which are almost all found in

the sub-kingdoms, Coelenterata and Molluscoida) the several in-

dividuals are rarely combined in such a manner as to necessitate

any physiological division of labour among them. The associated

individuals of a Hydrozoon or an Ascidian are each free to spread

their tentacles, to draw in currents of water, and to select

their food, without in any way interfering with each other,

because the compound animal is either branched or approximately

hemispherical, and thus there is no necessity for any of the

combined individuals to become especially modified with regard

to the rest. But should a compound animal have its component

individuals arranged in a linear series, there would most probably

arise a marked difference of conditions between the two situated

at the extremities and those between them. If they remained

united, some modification must have occurred to adapt each to its

condition. But if, further, the series should be fixed at one end,

Ixxi

the other being free, a new differentiation must arise ; for the two

ends being very differently situated, the intermediate ones will

also differ accordingly as they are nearer one end or the other.

Here there is a cause for the differentiation of united individuals

that does not exist in any branched or other symmetrical

arrangement than a linear one. Some of the Salpidee show such

a rudimentary linear aggregation, but their mouths and vents

being lateral the individuals are so similarly situated that no

differentiation need occur. A little consideration will show us

that this is one of those cases in which perfectly transitional forms

are not be expected. A permanent union of individuals in a

linear series, such as to necessitate differentiation of function

among them, could only be effected by a series of co-ordinated

gradations, each of which would have so great an advantage

over its predecessor as to necessitate its extinction in the struggle

for existence. We cannot expect to find the union without the

differentiation, or the differentiation without the complete union;

and it will, therefore, be impossible to prove that such was the

origin of any group of animals, except by showing that numerous

- traces of separate individualities occur in their organization, and

cannot be explained by any of the known laws of development or

growth in animals not so compounded.

In the structure of the lower Annelids we do find strong in-

dications of such an ancestral fusion of distinct individuals.

These animals are composed of segments, not merely superficial,

but exhibiting throughout a wonderful identity of form and

structure. Hach segment has its branchie, its enlargement of the

alimentary canal, its contractile dilatation of the great blood-

vessel, its ganglia, its branches from the nervous and vascular

trunks, its organs of reproduction, its locomotive appendages, and,

sometimes, even its pair of eyes. Thus every segment is a

physiological whole, having all the organs essential to life and

multiplication. Again, just as other compound animals increase

by gemmation or fission, so do these. The embryo leaves the

egg a globular ciliated gemmule; elongation and segmentation then

take place, always inthe hinder part, so as to elongate the compound

animal without interfering with the more specialized anterior

segment. In the Nemertide, and some Planaria, spontaneous

fission occurs, each part becoming a perfect animal, and in the

Teenia this is the usual mode of reproduction. ‘The account given

Ixxil

by Professor Owen in his ‘Comparative Anatomy of Inverte-

brates’ is very suggestive of Mr. Spencer’s view. He says——

“On the first appearance of the embryo annelid it usually

consists of a single segment, which is chiefly occupied by a large

mass of unmetamorphosed germ-cells. And these are not used

up, as in higher animals, in developing the tissues and organs of

an undivided or individual whole, but, after a comparatively slight

growth and change of the primary segment, proceed in the

typical orders to form a second segment of somewhat simpler

structure, and then repeat such formations in a linear series,

perhaps more than a hundred times. So that we may have a

seeming individual annelid, consisting of many hundred segments,

in which a single segment would give all the characteristic

organization of such individual, except some slight additions or

modifications, characterising the first and last of the series.”

He also tells us that spontaneous fission has now been observed

to take place in almost every order of Annulata; and, in many,

artificial fission produces two distinct individuals. In some cases

the compound animal consists of very few segments, three only

in the genus Chetogaster, the fourth always separating as a

zooid, and forming a new animal. In the higher Articulata, the

process of gemmation goes on to a considerable extent in the egg,

and even afterwards in some cases, but more or less irregularly.

Thus the larva of Julus is hatched with eight segments, and

at the first moult it acquires six new ones, which are added

between the last and the penultimate.

The gradual fusion of the once distinct individuals into a

complete unity, is shown in a very interesting manner as we

advance from the lower to the higher forms. In the Annelida,

Dr. Carpenter tells us, the spiracles of each segment are separate,

and do not communicate internally with those of other segments.

In the Myriapoda they partially communicate, while in the

Insecta they communicate perfectly by a system of anastomosing

vessels. The same thing is indicated by the various positions of

the chief spiracles. In Smynthurus among the Poduride there

are only two, opening under the side of the head immediately

beneath the antenne. In Solpugide (Arachnida) they are

situated between the anterior feet; in some spiders they open

near the end of the abdomen, in others at its base. The position of

the mouth and eyes at the anterior extremity of the body, and the

Ixxili

vent at the posterior, are obviously what would arise as soon as

any specialization of function in the series of zooids occurred. It

is not, therefore, surprising that we never find these change their

position. But for the respiratory and generative organs there is

no such necessity for fixity of position, and as they existed

originally in every segment, we can well conceive how, as

articulate forms become more and more modified, it would

sometimes be useful to the compound animal for these organs

to become abortive or developed in different parts of the

body. We have seen that this is to some extent the case

with the former organs, but it occurs to a much greater extent

with the latter.

The most generalized form is to be seen in the intestinal

worms, each segment of which possesses a complete hermaphrodite

reproductive apparatus ; so that, in this respect, no less than in

their capacity for spontaneous fission, these creatures are really

what we should expect the early type of compound animals to

be. This, however, is a rare case, but even in the much higher

leeches there are testes in no less than nine of the segments, and

Dr. Williams discovered a direct passage from the spermatheca to

the ovaries, which seems to indicate internal self-fertilization.

It is, however, in the lower Arthropoda that we find the most

curious diversities in the position of these organs. In the

Glomeride the genital openings in both sexes are situated in the

third segment, just behind the insertion of the second pair of

limbs. In the Polydesmide the female organs are in the third

segment, while those of the male are in the seventh segment.

In Julus the same organs are situated in the fourth and seventh

segments respectively. The Chilopoda, on the other hand, have

them near the end of the body, as in most insects. In the

Acarina the ovaries open on the middle of the abdomen or on the

under side of the thorax, either between or behind the last pair of

legs. In spiders the seminal orifice is at the base of the abdomen,

but the palpi are the intromittent organs; these are spoon-shaped,

and are besides armed with horny processes, hooks, and other

appendages, and must be looked upon as true generative organs.

In the Astacide the sexual organs of the male are at the base of

the first pair of abdominal legs, those of the female at the base

of the third pair. Among the true winged-insects there is one

remarkable case of abnormal position of these organs, in the

lxxiv

dragon-flies, which have the seminal vessels in the ninth, while

the complex male sexual organs are situated in the second, abdo-

minal segment. It is interesting to note that this curious anomaly

occurs in an order which is considered to be of the greatest

antiquity and most generalized type among the true insects.

There are many other facts of a similar character to those I

have now touched upon, and they all become clearly intelligible

on the theory of Mr. Spencer, that the Annulosa are really

compound animals, or, as he expresses it, “ aggregates of the third

order ;” while the other great groups of highly organized animals

—Mollusea and Vertebrata—are typically simple animals, or

“agoregates of the second order,” (the cells of which their struc-

tures are built up being “ aggregates of the first order”). Nothing

of a similar character is to be found among the two latter groups.

No molluscous or vertebrate animal can be divided transversely

so that the separate segments shall be in any degree alike, and

contain repetitions of any important organs. The distinct

separation of parts in the vertebral column has been acquired, for

it is less visible in the lower types than in the higher (the reverse

of what obtains among insects), and in the lowest of all is quite

absent; while in none is there any corresponding multiplicity or

displacement of respiratory, circulatory, or generative organs. The

vertebral column corresponds rather to the segmented shell of the

Chiton, and has no more relation than it to the essential plan of

the more important vital organs. Neither does any mollusk or

vertebrate undergo spontaneous fission, nor that complete and

progressive segmentation in the process of developmeut which is

characteristic of all Annulosa; nor do they ever exhibit the pheno-

mena of parthenogenesis or alternation of generations, the essential

feature of both which is, that numerous individuals are produced

from a single fertilized ovum, by a process analogous to (or

perhaps identical with) ordinary gemmation, and both which pheno-

mena sometimes occur even among the higher insects.

In concluding this short sketch of a remarkable theory, I would

observe, that if it is a true one it at once inyests the objects of our

study with a new and exceptional interest; because they are the

most highly developed portion of a group of animals which will,

in that case, differ fundamentally in their plan of structure from

all other highly organized forms of life. In the study of the

habits, instincts, and whole economy of insects, we shall have to

Ixxv

keep ever in view the conception of a number of individualities

fused into one, yet perhaps retaining some separateness of mental

action, a conception which may throw light on many an obscure

problem, and which will perhaps materially influence our ideas as

to the nature of life itself. We must remember also, that if the

insect is really a compound animal, then the only true homology

that can exist between it and a vertebrate, or a mollusk, will be one

between a single segment and an entire animal, and the search

after any other will be so much lost time. Especially must the

acceptance of this theory have an important bearing on all

embryological and genetical studies ; and if the facts and argu-

ments adduced by its learned and philosophical author do make

out even a prima facie case in its favour, it must deserve the

careful and unbiassed consideration of all who endeavour to solve

the problem of the origin of insects.

I have now, Gentlemen, only to express my satisfaction that,

at the expiration of my term of office, 1 leave the Society in at

least as flourishing a condition as that in which I found it; for,

although I feel that none of its success is due to my individual

exertions, yet some of the responsibility of misfortune might have

fallen upon me. The Entomological and all similar Societies

may be compared to such a compound animal as Mr. Spencer's

insect, and its success will depend upon its component members

being sufficiently numerous and _ sufficiently differentiated in

character to perform energetically all the functions which maintain

its life, and at the same time sufficiently combined and integrated

to work harmoniously together for the good of the organism.

The officers with whom I have had the pleasure of being

associated during the past year, make, I venture to suggest, a

near approach to this high ideal; and although I have been but

an inefficient head to a body which is, so to speak, engaged in a

constant struggle to maintain a healthy and useful existence,

yet your kind consideration has always made it a pleasure for me

to fulfil, to the best of my ability, the duties of the honourable

office to which you elected me.

Ixxvi

Mr. Dunning proposed, and Mr. Weir seconded, a vote of thanks to

Mr. Wallace for his Address, and for his services as President during the

past year. Mr. Wallace returned thanks.

Mr. Dunning proposed, and Mr. Stainton seconded, a vote of thanks to

the other officers for 1871. Mr. Stevens returned thanks.

Abstract of the Treasurer's Accounts for 1871.

Receipts. Pavments.

LOT Og Us| as wd:

By Balance in hand, Jan.1,1871 6 3 8 To Rent, Librarian, and Office ) Bip ir (i

,, Arrears of Subscriptions .. 24 3 0O Expenses sore e ete ce es )

,, Subscriptions for 1871.... 145 17 0) » Printing ......-.....0-6- LAS

,, Admission Fees.........- 6 6 0} », Plates,engraving & printing 29 5 0

» Tea Subscriptions ........ 10 2 0| » Tea, 13 Meetings ........ 13 18 0

, Interest on £148 Os. 5d. , | » Consols purchased Lads

Memmi ctecley: ft. o, [rites (2iGi7s/60. i) ace

,, sale of Publications ..... (Al AUS) | ye Balance in Treasurer's ) ah 68

DONATIONS Elaeiaeis elec ee 20 0 0] hands .......+.. )

paar pore

£302 14 11 £302 14 11

Liabilities and Assets of the Society.

Liabilities. Assets.

oS Cal oo 5 OG

To Loan of Mr. Dunning .... 45 O 0, By Arrears of Subscriptions :—

Goodieres-rortaerc (say) 24 3 0

| Doubtful £56 14s. Od.

| 5, £164 18s.1d. Consols (eost) 151 9 O

| ,, Cash Balance in hand.... 8 1 8

£45 0 0} 178 13 8

| essa bilities) | sy. yeni eters 45 0 O

£133 13 8

EDWARD NEWMAN, PRINTER, DEVONSHIRE STREET, BISHOPSGATIN

( xxvii )

INDEX:

Nore.—Where the name only of an Insect is mentioned, the description

of the Insect will be found at the page referred to.

The Arabic Figures refer to the pages of the ‘Tramsactions;’ the Roman

Numerals to the pages of the ‘ Proceedings.’

PAGE PAGE

GENERAL SUBJECTS .......+0- Ixxvii. LEPIDOPTERA «ccccscesseses Ixxx.

PARDIDES RAGE ects sieissisibiswaseteecss Ixxviii. NEUROPTERA ...-ccceccccees lxxxi.

COTBOPTERA cscsccseccccesenas lxxviii. ORTHOPTERA ..cccccccccceee lxxxii.

WTP IVAW sicie veieciecavesecesieceeves Ixxix. STREPSIPTERA cseesececeees lxxxii.

EGE MTPTMRAScccccesecesasvesces Ixxix. TTHYSANOPTERA .ccccceccees lxxxii.

ELYMENOPTHRA cavecescccesses Ixxx. TIHYSANURA cccscsossscsseos Ixxxii.

——$—$$————————

GENERAL SUBJECTS.

Anniversary Address of the President, li.

Annual Report of the Council for 1871, xlix.

Atlantic fauna, origin of the, x1.

Atmospheric agencies, dispersal of insects by, v., vi-, 175.

Books and silk fabrics destroyed by Lepisma, xiv.

Dispersal of insects by atmospheric agencies, v.-vi., 175.

Dragon-flies, liability of to attacks of birds, xxxix., xlii., xlvii.

Dyes, experiments with, upon insects, xxiii.

Earthenware jar in which the Chinese keep ‘fighting beetles,’ xx.

Eggs on tusk of Indian elephant, xviii.

Entomological Society in London in 1780, minute book of Proceedings

of, Xxx.

( lxxvin )

GENERAL SUBJECTS—continued.

Galls on Carer, x.—on oak from California, xxxv.

Grasshoppers, machine to kill, xxxi.

Gynandromorphism, xiy.

Immature sexuality in insects, 193.

Larval head retained by the perfect insect, ii., iv.

Mimetie resemblances, xxxix.

Observatory hives, early use of, v.

Preserved lary, xxxiv.

Puparium partly retained by the perfect insect, xxxi.

Sexes of insects, notes on the influence of food in determining the, ix.

Showers of insects (?) at Bath, xx., xxii.

Tangiers, insects from, xxx.

Thrips, destructive to peas, xl.

APTERA.

Myriopod attaeking strawberries, xxxi.

Pediculus pavonis, exhibition of, vii.

Phytoptus, galls on birch, xxiv.—P. vitis, vine leaf attacked by, xxxi.

COLEOPTERA.

Anobium nitidulum, 262.

Apterocyclus honoluluensis, 315.

Atlantic Coleoptera, xi.—additions to, 203.—synonymy of, 206.

Bolbotritus Bainesi, 375.

Cantharis assamensis, 407.—hirtipes, 406.—nepalensis, 405.—ruficeps, 408.

—tibialis, 406.

Carpophagus excavatus, 382.

Caulotrupis pyricollis, 265.

Cephennium mycetoides, 281.

Cicindela Crespignyi, 379.

Cryphalus picee, British specimen of, xxxv.

Diamond-fields of South Africa, Coleoptera from the, xli.

Ditropidus biplagiatus, 389.—carbonarius, 384.—dimidiatus, 389.—Du-

boulat, 385.—fasciatus, 390.—fulvus, 388.—hirticollis, 384,—

Odewahnii, 387.—rufo-cupreus, 386.—strigosus, 385.—tarsa-

tus, 387.

Dorcus glabripennis, 359.—ratiocinativus, 356.—rudis, 357.—suturalis,

358.

Duboulaia, 381.—D. flavipennis, 382.

Elaphodes albo-hirsutus, 383.

Emus hirtus from the New Forest, xxx.

Eurygnathus Latreillit and parallelus, note on, 215, xxxyi.

( lxxix )

COLEOPTERA—continued.

Falagria longipes, 284.

Homalota Sharpiana, 288.

Lachnabothra Breweri, 393.—distincta, 398.—Duboulai, 399.—Hopei, 392.

—integra, 394.—Saundersi, 397.—Waterhousei, 396.— Wil-

soni, 395.

Lemophleus suffusus, 244.

Latridius Watsoni, 253.

Lissapterus, note on the genus, xlii.

Lissotes forcipula, 366, 2 (2?) 3867.—furcicornis, 362.—cancroides, note

on, 391.—Howittanus, 369.—latidens, 363.—Lawncestoni, 365.—

subcrenatus, 368.

Lucanide, new species of, 315, 353.

Mallaspis precellens, 376.

Meligethes Ryei, 238.

Nigidius Parryi, 360.

Ochthebius algicola, 223. —subpictus, note on, 224.

Oxygonia albitenia, 377.—cyanopis, 377.

Oxypoda, notes on British species of, 187.—0O. brachyptera, 191.—edinen-

sis, 188.—exigua, 190.—mutata, 191.—nigrina, 190.—recondita,

190.—riparia, 191.—tarda, 192.—verecunda, 189.— Waterhousei,

190.

Oxytelus fulvipes, in Britain, ii.

Phytophaga, new species of Australian, 381.

Pselaphus minyops, 283.

Rhetulus crenatus, , 353.—Westwoodii, note on, 355.

Scutopterus imbricatus, 220.

Scydmenus rufus, British specimen of, xvii.

Spherolina, 400.

Strumatophyma, 400.

Tarphius lutulentus, 240.

Tetracha crucigera, from Australia, xli.

Throscus carinifrons, British specimen of, xxxy.

Trechus debilis, 217.

DIPTERA.

Cecidomyia, galls of, on Cainpanula rotundifolium, viii.—C. campanule,

viii.

Chlorops lineata, swarms of, x.

Pipiza noctiluca, with foreign substance adhering to the head, x.

Psila rose, injurious to carrots, xxxi.

HEMIPTERA.

Coccus infesting Cypripedium niveum, iil.

Coriwva, destructive to ova of fishes in Madras, iii.—C. ovivora, iv.

Fulgora, luminosity of, vii.

( Ixeex®)

HYMENOPTERA.

Aculeate Hymenoptera, gynandromorphism in, xiv.

Ants storing seeds, xlvii.

Cynipide, galls of, from Morocco, ii.

Diastrophus rubi, bred from galls on Pteris aquilina, xx.

Formica herculanea, in crop of Picus martius said to have been shot near

Oxford, xxxvi., xXxxviii.

Gynandromorphism in Aculeate Hymenoptera, xiv.

Hornet decorticating branches of ash, vii.

Ichneumon glaucopterus, from Glanville’s Wootton, xxiv.

Myrmecomorphus rufescens from Glanville’s Wootton, xxiv.

Osmia pilicornis from Glanyille’s Wootton, xxiv.

Rhynchium brunnewn in Egyptian mummy, y.—obliterating hieroglyphic

inscriptions, v.

Tiphia supposed to be parasitic upon Aphodius, xl.

LEPIDOPTERA.

Aplecta occulta at sea, XXXv.

Argynnis vorax, 403.

Belenois Cynis, var., 171.

Bombyx Pernyi and Yama-mai, hybrid between, iv.

Bombyx Pernyi, system of cultivation in Shang-tung, xxv.

Botys fuscalis, with part of puparium adhering to the head, xxxi.

Callidryas fornax, 170.—Jaresia, 171.

Catocala fraxini in the Regent’s Park, xxxiy.

Cemonympha Satyrion from the Gemmi, variation in, Vil.

Diurni from South and Central America, 165.

Euchle Limonea, 172.

Eurygona argentea, 166.

Heterochrow Makkeda, 165.—Zalmona, 165.

Hybrid between Bombyx Pernyi and Yamai-mai, iv.

Ixias venatus, 169.

Kricogonia Fantasia, 170.

Lasiocampa trifolii, pale variety of, xxxix.

Larinopoda, 172.—L. lycenoides, 173.

Lethe satyrina, 402.

Lithosia caniola from Romney Marsh, xxxix.

Macro-Lepidoptera, arrangement of Groups of, xv., 317.

Madagascar, butterflies from, vii.

Micro-Lepidoptera, mines of, from Bogota, xviii.

Neptis Pryeri, 403.

Nyssia lapponaria at Rannoch, xviii.

Pachnobia alpina, from Perthshire, i.

( Teexi)

LEPIDOPTERA—contiiwed.

Paleonympha opalina, 401.

Papilio Crino, variety of the g of, xxxvi—Thersander, remarks on, xli.

Pieride, new species of, 169.

Pyrrhopyga Crida, 167.—eximia, 167.

Synonymic notes, xxi., xxvii., xliii.

Vanessa Atalanta retaining larval head, ii.

Varieties of Lepidoptera, i., vii., xviii., xxiy., xli.

Yphthima zodia, 402.

Zygena, remarks on specific difference in the genus, 417.—Z. ewulans from

Braemar, xxxiv.—trifolii, 417.

NEUROPTERA.

Agrion entering the water to deposit eggs, xxxix.

Asthenopus, species of, 59.

Baetis, species of, 110.—B. amnicus, 117.—finitimus, 118.—pictus, 122.

Betisca, species of, 101.

Bittacus apterus exhibited, xxxy.

Cenis, species of, 92.

Campsurus, species of, 56.—C. cuspidatus, 58.—quadridentatus, 58.

Centroptilum, species of, 107.—C. stenopteryx, 110.

Cloeon, species of, 102.

Coloburus, species of, 1382.—C. halenticus, 138.

Cronicus, species of, 133.

Dragon flies, liability of, to attacks of birds, xxxix., xlii., xlvii.

Ephemera, species of, 68.—EH. immaculata, 74.—serica, 75.

Ephemerella, species of, 98.

Ephemeride, bibliography of, 3.—fossil species, 38.—index specierum, 17.

Euthyplocia, species of, 67.

Heptagenia, species of 135.—H. alpicola, 148.—borealis, 187.—cupulata,

138.—nivata, 137.

Hexagenia, species of, 64.

Isonychia, species of, 1384.—I, manca, 134.

Lachlamia, species of, 54.

Leptophlebia, species of, 77.—L. auriculata, 83.—dentata, 80.—furcifera,

79.—inconspicua, 79.—mollis, 88.—nodularis, 81.—strigata,

80.

Libellula flaveola, eggs of, xxxv.—L. pulchella, and Plathemis trimaculata,

mimicry between, xxxix.

Myrmeleon formicaleo, formicarium, and formicalyna, identification of,

441, xlvii.

Odonates, apergu statistique sur les, 409.

Oligoneuria, species of, 54.—pallida, 56.

( Lexxn: )

NEUROPTERA—continued.

Palingenia, species of, 61.

Pentagenia, species of, 63.

Polymitarcys, species of, 60.—P. Savignyi, 61.

Potamanthus, species of, 76.

Prosopistoma, the genus, supposed to be founded on an immature con-

dition of Ephemeride, xlvii.

Siphlurus, species, of, 125.—S. Linneanus, 127.

Tricorythus, species of, 92.

ORTHOPTERA.

Acrydium peregrinum in Morocco, abundance of, xxx.

Grasshoppers, machine to kill, xxxi.

STREPSIPTERA.

Notice of Monograph of, xxxii.

THYSANOPTERA.

Thrips, destructive to green peas, xl.

THYSANURA.

Lepisma saccharina, destructive to books and silk fabrics, xiv.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, E.C.

Srans Ent Soe le PLL.

y Lone

nes

TTY

cS /

“awa lobyt lca ee; a i

= Vee te

eyeing

6 Manip cer 2

ee yi

Trams Ent Soc JEMELIV

Es Trans Fink: Soed8 1 PLV

Trans Link Soe 18 UPLUL

G Sarma se.

Trans. Ent. Soc. 1871. PL VI.

Mh i,

1 Balenois cvras, var. &6 Kricogonia’ fantasia,

2, 8 Larinopoda Lycenoides, 7.laevas venatus.

A.G Butler dal et hth. Feb. 1871. Mintern’ Bro? imp

: = 4 ;

& ‘ j t<,

+ ¢

‘ i - +

. ,

a .

‘

1 iy

r . 4

P .

f : wr

: ’

‘

5 z

i P iB

= is

I an

, f <

7 * wy

Vs . 1 i *

1871. PU. Vi.

Ent. Soc.

Trans

LOH, JU TX

Soc oo)

Trans. Ent.

THE

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

POR. TH Bic¥ EAR

1871.

PART J.

WITH SIX PLATES.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, FARRINGDON ROAD.

SOLD AT THE SOCJETY’S ROOMS, 12, BEDFORD ROW,

AND BY

LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER, PATERNOSTER ROW.

THE AGENT OF THE SOCIETY IN PARIS.IS M. DEYROLLE, 19, RUE DE LA MONNAIE.

[Price 10s. ]

\ Vf

CONTENTS

Prank Bl.

PAGE.

I. A Monograph on the Ephemeride. By the Rev. A. E. Eaton,

Bibs! ve ; A : p : é 5 , : . 1-164.

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,

No. 12, BEDFORD ROW.

COUN Oi Ls toi Le

A. R. WatLack, Hsq., F.Z.8., President.

J. O. Westwoop, Esq., M.A., F.L.8., &e.

H. T. Srainron, Esq., F.R.S., &e. Vice-Presidents.

J. W. Dunnine, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., &e.

SAMUEL STEVENS, Usq., F.L.S., Treasurer.

Ropert M‘Lacutan, Esq., F.L.8. t Secretaries

FERDINAND Gru, Esq.

A. G. Burier, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.8.

ALEX. Fry, Esq., F.L.8.

K. T. Hieerns, Esq., M.R.C.S.

Major F. J. S. Parry, F.L.S.

F. P. Pascon, Esq., F.L.S., &e.

Epwarp Saunpers, Esq., F.L.S.

The Meetings are held at Burlington House, Piccadilly, at 7 p.m. on the

first Monday in every Month from November to July inclusive, and on the

third Monday in November, February, and March.

The Librarian attends at No. 12, Bedford Row, every Monday, from 2 to

7 o'clock.

Members and Subscribers, resident more than fifteen miles from London,

who have paid their subscription for the current year, are entitled to

receive the Transactions without further payment, and to those resident in

the United Kingdom they will be forwarded free, by post.

ee. a ee es

THE

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

FOR THE YEAR

1871.

WITH ONE PLATE.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, FARRINGDON ROAD.

SOLD AT THE SOCIETY’S ROOMS, 12, BEDFORD ROW,

AND BY

LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER, PATERNOSTER ROW.

THE AGENT OF THE SOCIETY IN PARIS ISM. DEYROLLE, 19, RUE DE LA MONNAIEZ.

—

[Price 7s.]

eR eet cn Se dg ne ee

a ia NE a

pare 3's

ST oe ee ge

——

RI ee ee

VER of e.4 ar

CONTENTS

Patra de

bog Wl NO I Die

Il. New Species of Diurnal Lepidoptera from South and Central

America. By W. C. Hnwitson, F.L.S. 5

fII. Descriptions of a new genus, and six new ee of Piorine.

By A. G. Butter, F.L.8., &e. . :

IV. On the dispersal of non-migratory Insects by atmospheric

agencies. By ALBERT MuLLER, F.R.G.S.,

V. Notes on some British species of Oxypoda, me deseriptions

of new species. By Davip SHarp,M.B. . :

VI. Observations on Immature Sexuality and Alternate Gentes!

tion in Insects. By B. T. Lownn, M.R.C.S., Eng.

VI. On Additions to the Atlantic one By T. VERNON

Wotraston, M.A., F.L.8. .

VII. Onanew genus and species of Gh pasntor tee to the

family Lucanide, from the Sandwich Islands. ae! Cuas. O.

WATERHOUSE

Proceedings

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,

No, 12, BEDFORD ROW.

COUNCIL, 1871.

A. RB. Watuack, Esq., F.Z.8., President.

. Westwoop, Esq., M.A., F.L.8., &e.

J.O

H. T. Stainton, Esq., F.R.S., &e. Vice-Presidents,

J.W

. Dunnine, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., &e.

- SAMUEL STEVENS, Hsq., F.L.S., Treasurer.

Rogpert M‘Lacutan, Esq., F.L.S.

FERDINAND Grut, Esq.

A. G. BuTLER, Bea ty L.S., F.Z.S. | Major F. J. 8. Parry, F.L.S.

ALEX. Fry, Esq., E F. P. Pascor, Esq., F.L.S., &c.

Hale Hiaerns, Esq. ‘ 3 R.C.S. EpwakD SaunpDeErs, Esq., F.L.S.

Secretaries.

The Meetings are held at Burlington House, Piccadilly, at 7 P.M. on the

first Monday in every Month from November to July inclusive, and on the

third Monday in November, February, and March.

The Librarian attends at No. 12, Bedford Row, every Monday, from 2 to

7 o'clock.

Members and Subscribers, resident more than fifteen miles from London,

who have paid their subscription for the current year, are entitled to

receive the Transactions without further payment, and to those resident in

the United Kingdom they will be forwarded free, by post.

THE

TRANSACTIONS

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

FOR THE YEAR

1871.

PART III.

WITH TWO PLATES.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, FARRINGDON ROAD.

SOLD AT THE SOCIETY’S ROOMS, 12, BEDFORD ROW,

AND BY

LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER, PATERNOSTER ROW.

THE AGENT OF THE SOCIETY IN PARIS IS M. DEYROLLE, 19, RUE DE LA MONNAIE.

[Price 5s.]

IX.

;

ee ee

——

Sn ET eg OE a ae

XVI.

A. G. Butter, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.S.

Avex. Fry, Hsq., F.L.S.

E. T. Hieetns, Esq., M.R.C.S.

The Meetings are held at Burlington House, Piccadilly, at 7 P.M. on the

first Monday in every Month from November to July inclusive, and on the

third Monday in November, February, and March.

CONTENTS

PART IIL

An Examination of the arrangement of Macro-Lepidoptera

introduced in England by Mr. Doubleday, and a suggestion

as to its origin; with some strictures on synonymic Lists.

By W. Arnotp LEwis . ! ‘ : ‘ : 4 :

Descriptions of some new Hxotic species of Lucanide. By

Prof. J. O. Westwoop, M.A., F.L.S. A “ :

Descriptions of a new genus, and of two new species of

Longicorn Coleoptera. By H. W. Bates, F.Z.8., &e. .

Descriptions of three new species of Cicindelide. By H. W.

Bares, F.Z.8., &e. : K i S 3 : » ‘

Descriptions of new genera, and of some recently discovered

species of Australian Phytophaga. By J. 8. Baty, F.Z.S. .

Descriptions of five new species, and a new genus of Diurnal

Lepidoptera from Shanghai. By A. G. BuriEr, F.LS., &c.

On some black species of Cantharis with red heads and filiform

antennee. By Cuas. O. WATERHOUSE. . ¢ 2

Apercu statistique sur les Névroptéres Odonates. Par le

Baron E. pE Senys-Lonecuamps, Mem. Hon. Soc. Ent.

Lond. . . “ . 2 5 : 4

Proceedings

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,

No. 12, BEDFORD ROW.

COUNCIL, 1871.

A. R. Wattack, Hsq., F.Z.8., President.

WeEstwoop, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., &e.

Jo.0%

H. T. Stainton, Esq., F.R.S8., &c. Vice-Presidents.

J. W.

Dunnine, Hsq., M.A., F.L.S., &e.

- Samvuen Stevens, Hsq., F.L.S., Treasurer.

Rosert M‘Lacutan, Hsq., F.L.S.

FERDINAND Grut, Esq.

Major F. J. S. Parry, F.L.8.

F. P. Pascor, Hsq., F.L.S., &e.

i Secretaries.

EpwarbD SauNDERS, Hsq., F.L.S.

PAGE.

317

353

The Librarian attends at No. 12, Bedford Row, every Monday, from 2 to

7 o'clock.

Members and Subscribers, resident more than fifteen miles from London,

who have paid their subscription for the current year, are entitled to

receive the Transactions without further payment, and to those resident in

the United Kingdom they will be forwarded free, by post.

THE

TRANSACTIONS

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

FOR THE YEAR

1871.

PART IV.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, FARRINGDON ROAD.

SOLD AT THE SOCIETY’S ROOMS, 12, BEDFORD ROW,

AND BY

LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER, PATERNOSTER ROW.

THE AGENT OF THE SOCIETY IN PARIS ISM. DEYROLLE, ily RUE DE LA MONNAIE.

Price: 13:

aa Se ee eee

7 ae

ee eee ere

a OS ee Se See ee ee en Oe

Se oe

CONTENTS

PART «Uv:

XVII. On the forms of Zygena Trifolii, with some remarks on the

question of specific difference, as opposed to local or

phytophagic variation, in that genus. By T. H. Brices,

B.A. 4 é : : . 2 < . .

XVI. Remarks concerning the identification of Myrmeleon formi-

caleo, formicariwm, and formicalyn» of Linné. By

R. McLacuian, F.L.S., Sec. Ent. Soc. .

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,

No. 12, BEDFORD ROW.

COUNCIL, 1871.

A. BR. WauLack, Hsq., F.Z.8., President.

WEstwoop, Hsq., M.A., F.L.8., &.

J. O.

H. T. Srarnton, Hsq., F.R.S., &. Vice-Presidents.

J. W.

Dunning, Hsq., M.A., F.L.8., &e.

SAMUEL STEVENS, Esq., F.L.8., Treasurer.

Rogpert M‘Lacuizan, Esq., F.L.S8.

FERDINAND GRut, Esq.

A. G. Burirr, Hsq., F.L.S., F.Z.8. | Major F. J. S. Parry, F.L.S.

ALEX. Fry, Esq., F.L.8. F. P. Pascoz, Esq., F.L.S., &c.

E. T. Higertns, Esq., M.R.C.S.

Secretaries.

PAGE,

417

441

EDWARD SAUNDERS, Hsq., F.L.S.

The Meetings are held at Burlington House, Piccadilly, at 7 p.m. on the

first Monday in every Month from November to July inclusive, and on the

third Monday in November, February, and March.

The Librarian attends at No. 12, Bedford Row, every Monday, from 2 to

7 o'clock.

Members and Subscribers, resident more than fifteen miles from London,

who have paid their subscription for the current year, are entitled to

receive the Transactions without further payment, and to those resident in

the United Kingdom they will be forwarded free, by post.

THE

TRANSACTIONS

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

FOR THE YEAR

1871.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY H. G. ROWORTH,

11, RAY STREET, FARRINGDON ROAD.

SOLD AT THE SOCIETY’S ROOMS, 12, BEDFORD ROW,

AND BY

LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER, PATERNOSTER ROW.

THE AGENT OF THE SOCIETY IN PARIS IS M. DEYROLLE, 19, RUE DE LA MONNAIE,

[Price 2s.]

See a Te

}

CONTENTS

PART). Vi.

Title Page, Contents, List of Members, &c. : 3 : : G iy

Proceedings : : 3 z ; s - “ ° 3 XXxiii.

Index . Hs a a é 4 a A 3 a ‘ é lxxvii.

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,

No. 12, BEDFORD ROW.

COUNCIL, 1871.

A. R. Wattack, Esq., F.Z.8., President.

J. O. Westwoop, Hsq., M.A., F.L.S., &e.

H. T. Srarnton, Hsq., F.B.S., &e. Vice-Presidents.

J. W. Dunnine, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., &c.

SaMUEL STEVENS, Hsq., F.L.8., Treasurer.

Rospert M‘Lacutan, Esq., F.L.S.

FERDINAND Grut, Esq.

A. G. Burirr, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.8. | Major F. J. S. Parry, F.L.S.

ALEX. Fry, Esq., F.L.8. F. P. Pascoz; Esq., F.L.S., &e.

E. T. Hieerns, Esq., M.R.C.S. EpwarD Saunpers, Esq., F.L.S.

k Secretaries.

The Meetings are held at Burlington House, Piccadilly, at 7 p.m. on the

first Monday in every Month from November to July inclusive, and on the

third Monday in November, February, and March.

The Librarian attends at No. 12, Bedford Row, every Monday, from 2 to

7 o'clock.

Members and Subscribers, resident more than fifteen miles from London,

who have paid their subscription for the current year, are entitled to

receive the Transactions without further payment, and to those resident in

the United Kingdom they will be forwarded free, by post.