Deg mie ints Ce pop

tint rt

=

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF

LONDON.

ae

)

1

4

THE

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ot)

“ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF

LONDON

POR. THE YEAR

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY C. ROWORTH AND SONS,

NEWTON STREET, HIGH HOLBORN;

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

AND BY LONGMAN, GREEN, READER AND DYER,

PATERNOSTER ROW.

1872.

Qs 461

(RGSS

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

COUNCIL FOR 1872.

Prof. J. O. WESTWOOD, M.A., F.L.S. ..

H. T. STAINTON, Esq., F.R.S., &c.

FREDERICK SMITH, Esq... ee

EDWARD SAUNDERS, Esq., F.L.S.

SAMUEL STEVENS, Esq., F.L.S...

ROBERT M‘LACHLAN, Esq., F.L.8. «+

FERDINAND GRUT, Esq., F.L.S.

H. W. BATES, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.S.

A. G. BUTLER, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.S.

K. T. Hieerns, Esq., M.R.CS. .- ste

Rev. T. A. MARSHALL, M.A., F.L.S. ..

ALBERT MULLER, Esq., F.L.S. ..

A. R. WALLACE, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.S. ..

President.

Vice-Presidents.

Treasurer.

} Secretaries.

Other Members of

Council.

THE

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

1834—1872.

ESAS SS

To the Public. To Members.

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

Second Series, 5 volumes (1850-1861)...... 8) 1030 6 2050

Third Series, 5 volumes (1862-1869) ...... LEO sO 81520

The Transactions for the year 1868 ........ LEO RO 015 0

5 im Isto) 5 oon 0006 120 016 6

3 5 WO) codalibooe Lene) ib it

5 > 1871. ° 1-56 0 Oy le) 18)

ny 3 1872 .ccscs0 ° 1 12-70 016 6

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 .. ore ic ee -- Price £2 12 0 zelb iE th)

Phytophaga Malayana, Pt.1, Apostasicera,

may be obtained separately ar os 016 0 O20

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

may be obtained separately, by Members g7atis, 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

London 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.

Syn)

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Explanation of the Plates Be st at ae St viii

Errata aye ss are Vili

List of MeeEens ae a ie ix

MEMOIRS.

I. Stylopidarum, ordinem Strepsipterorum Kirbii constituen-

tium, mihi tamen potius Coleopterorum Familix, Rhipi-

phoridis Meloidisque propinquex, Monographia. Auctore

S. S. SAUNDERS. <0

II. Qn certain species of Pevicopides in the Collection of Mr.

W. Wilson Saunders: with a List of the described species

pertaining to that Group. By ArrHurR G. BUTLER,

GES: HieZisey OCG. ln ele bc ae re 56

Ill. Descriptions of some species of Cassidid@ new to science.

By J. 8. BAty, F.L.S.

IV. Descriptions of new species of Lwcanoid Coleoptera; with

remarks on the genus Cantharolethrus, and supplemen-

tary list. By Major F. J. S. Parry, F.L.S. (including

descriptions by M. Snellen Van Vollenhoven, and Prof.

WESTWOOD, M.A., F.L.S.) .. ote 5c ot sic

V. Descriptions of some new Papilionide. By J. O. WEST-

Woop, M.A., F.L.S., Pres. Ent. Soc. Gib :

VI. Notes on the Diwrnal Lepidoptera described by Jablonsky

and Herbst, in their “ Natursystem aller bekannten Insek-

tense Wiebe ERB Ye Ser. St ore 5c :

VII. On the genus Acentropus. By J. W. DUNNING, M.A.,

10 Des bat(es Wee ee ae we 56 oI ae

VII. On the external sexual apparatus of the males of the genus

Acentropus. By ROBERT M‘LACHLAN, F.L.S., Sec. Ent.

SOG S66 ie oe SC ste sic er ar

IX. On the Longicorn Coleoptera of Chontales, Nicaragua, By

H. W. BATES, F.L.S. os ae ae ae Ac

X. Descriptions of Twenty new species of Buprestidae. By

EDWABD SAUNDERS, F.L.S., V.-P. Ent. Soc. ..

111

121

157

163

239

Vill MEMOIRS (continued).

PAGE

XI. Notes on certain species of Pericopides, omitted in a list of

species recently read before the Society. te AGG:

BUTLER, F.L.S., F.Z.S. &c. o. +. . 255

XII. Notes on Part III. of the Catalogue of British Insects aa

lished by the Entomological Society of London ; Hymen-

optera [ Chrysididea, Ichneumonide, Braconide, and

Evaniide). By the Rev. T. A. MARSHALL, M.A., F.L.S. 259

XIII. Descriptions of new genera and species of Zenebrionide.

By FREDERICK BATES x0 ee ae 36 sit 20D

XIV. Supplementary Note on the genus Acentropus. By J. W.

DUNNING, M.A., F.L.S. 30 281

XV. Onthe manner in which the ravages of the larvee of a WVe-

matus, on Salia. cinerea, are checked by Picromerus

bidens, L. By ALBERT MULLER, F.L.S... 283

Proceedings for 1872 .. i

Index . Ixxxi

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES.

Platesstwue er sc 56 ae < oc ee Seepage 84

Plates UL.—V... 40 Sc bn 26 ste 56 0 110

Plate VI. oe ae an ve Ye ee big 254

Plate VII. a0 Be Pat ne aie cfs fe - 288

ERRATA.

Page 84, for © read ¢, in description of figure of the head of O. Stevensiz.

(See also p. 287, for Errata on pp. 1—48.)

Hist of Members

OF THE

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF LONDON.

DECEMBER 31st, 1872.

LIST OF MEMBERS

OF

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

OF LONDON.

Honorary Wembers.

Guérin-Méneville, F. E., Paris.

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

Leconte, John L., Philadelphia.

Milne-Edwards, H., Paris.

Saussure, H. de, Geneva.

Schiddte, J. C., Copenhagen.

Selys-Longchamps, E. de, Liége.

Siebold, C. T. E. von, Munich.

Zeller, P. C., Stettin.

Zetterstedt, J. W., Lund.

ORDINARY MEMBERS AND SUBSCRIBERS.

Marked * are Original Members.

Marked ¢ have compounded for their Annual Subscriptions.

Marked 8 are Annual Subscribers.

Date of

Election.

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

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

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

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

* t 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, Percy, Beckenham, S.E.

1872 Bird, G. W., 27, Hamilton Terrace, St. John’s Wood, N.W.

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

1864 Blackmore, Trovey, The Hollies, Wandsworth, 8.W.

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

- Blomefield, Rev. L., M.A., F.L.S., &c., 19, Belmont, Bath.

1841 Bond, Fred., F.Z.S., 208, Adelaide Road, N.W.

1860 Bonvouloir, Vicomte Henri de, 15, Rue de l’ Université, Paris.

1865 Borthwick, Richard, Alloa, N.B.

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

Leonards.

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

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

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

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

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

1869 §S. 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 §S. Champion, G. C., 274, Walworth Road, S.E.

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

Xil

Date of

Election.

1867

1865

1865

1865

1853

1867

1865

1868

1868

1865

*

1849

1837

1855

1865

*

1867

1867

1871

1849

1865

1865

1869

1865

1858

1865

1869

1870

1869

1855

1865

1857

1865

1855

*

1850

1842

1866

S.

S.

Spams

+

LIST OF MEMBERS.

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

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

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

Cooke, Benj., 22, Albert Road, Longsight, Manchester.

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

Cox, Herbert E., Rosenheim, Reigate.

Crotch, G. R., M.A.

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

Curzon, E. P. R.

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

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

Dawson, John, Carron, Falkirk, Stirlingshire.

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., Albuera, St. Leonards, Exeter.

Eaton, Rev. A. E., B.A., Pottesgrove Rectory, Woburn.

Emich, Gustave d’, Pesth.

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

Fenning, George, Lloyds, E.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.8., &c., Chatham.

Fry, Alexander, F.L.S8., Thornhill House, Dulwich Wood,

Park, S.E.

Fust, H. Jenner, jun., M.A., Hill Court, Falfield, Gloucester.

Gloyne, C. P., Jamaica.

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

Gorham, Rev. H. §., Rusper Rectory, Horsham.

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, Rey. J., M.A., Rostrevor, Apsley Rd., Clifton, Bristol.

Greening, Noah, Warrington.

Grut, Ferdinand, F.L.S., Seeretary, 9, King Street, South-

wark, S.E.

Guyon, George, Southcliff Cottage, Ventnor.

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

Date of

Election

1864

1846

1866

1869

1859

1865

1864

1870

1869_

1843

1869

1858

1872

1865

1872

1861

1865

1842

1861

1868

1865

1868

1868

1869

1835

1872

1865

1849

1850

1871

1850

1860

+ PD.

Rn

LIST OF MEMBERS. xl

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.

Holdsworth, Edward, Shanghai.

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, EK. M., Las Lajas, Chontales, Nicaragua.

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

Park, N.

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

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

Jenner, J. H. A., High Street, Lewes.

John, Evan, Llantrissant, Pontypridd.

Kaye, Ernest, Oakfield Road, Penge, S.E.

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, Major 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, S.W.

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

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

Livett, H. W., M.D., Wells, Somerset.

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., Highfield House, Cold Ash,

Newbury, Berks.

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

borough.

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

M‘Intosh, J.

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

ham, S.E.

Marseul, L’ Abbé 8. A. de, Boulevard Pereire, 271, Paris.

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

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

Mason, J. K., Alford.

Mathew, G. F., R.N., F.L.S., Instow, North Devon.

May, J. W., Arundel House, Perey Cross, Fulham Road, S.W.

XIV

Date of

Election.

1865

1872

1869

1865

1871

1866

1853

1872

1859

1869

1872

1870

1849

1869

1841

1840

1854

1869

1872

1852

1872

1870

1851

1867

1866

1870

1872

1865

1871

1853

1857

1869

1865

1872

1868

1861

1865

1866

1865

1861

*

1849

S.

~ +

DMD Dn

ie

+ +

LIST OF MEMBERS.

Meek, Edward G., 81, Prince of Wales Rd., Kentish Town, N.W.

Meldola, R., 21, John Street, Bedford Row, W.C.

Melyill, 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, S.E.

Moreton, Lord, 16, Portman Square, W.

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

Miller, Albert, F.L.S., Eaton Cottage, Sunny Bank Road,

South Norwood, 8.E.

Murray, Lieut. H., 104th Fusiliers, Fort Grange, Gosport.

Murray, Rev. 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, 8.E.

Oberthur, Charles (fils), Rennes.

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

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

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

Park, W.

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

Phipson, A., 18, Fenchurch Street, F.C.

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

Pictet, Edward, Genéve.

Porritt, G. T., F.L.S., Clare Hill, Huddersfield.

Preston, Rev. 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.

Ransom, Dr., F.R.S., The Pavement, Nottingham.

Ransome, Robert James, Ipswich.

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

Ripon, Marquis of, K.G., F.R.S., 1, Carlton Gardens, S.W.

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

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

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

Rothera, G. B., High Street Place, Nottingham.

Rothney, G. A. J., Calcutta.

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. §., Rosenheim, Reigate.

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

Date of

Election.

*

t

io)

LIST OF MEMBERS. XV

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, 21, Albert Terrace, Clapham Road, S.W.

Sheppard, Augustus F., Rose Bank, Eltham Road, Lee, $.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, H.C.

Spence, W. B.

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

ham, S.E.

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

Stevens, Samuel, F.L.S., Zreaswrer, 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, 23, 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.S., 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, Elm Hall, Wanstead, N.E.

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

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

Wallace, Alfred R., F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c., The Dell, Grays, Essex.

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

Ward, Christopher, F.L.S., Halifax.

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

XVi LIST OF MEMBERS.

Date of

Election, :

oS Westwood, Professor J. O., M.A., F.L.8., &c., President,

Oxford.

1868 f White, F. Buchanan, M.D., Eastferry, by Dunkeld, N.B.

1865 White, Rev. W. Farren, Stonehouse Vicarage, Gloucestershire.

1849 Wilkinson, S. J., 16, Austin Friars, H.C.

1863 Wik, William, Isbells, Reigate.

18438 Wollaston, T. Vernon, M.A., F.L.S., 1, Barnepark Terrace,

Teignmouth, Devon.

1862 Wormald, Perey C., 2, Clifton Villas, Highgate Hill, N.

1866 Wright, Professor E. Perceval, M.A., M.D., F.L.S., &c.,

Trinity College, Dublin.

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

THE

TRANSACTIONS

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY

LONDON

POR TAR YRAR 1872.

mee

I. Stylopidarum, ordinem Strepsipterorum Kirbii consti-

tuentium, mihi tamen potius Coleopterorum Familie,

Rhipiphoridis Meloidisque propingue, Monographia.

Auctore 8. 8. Saunpers.

[Read July 3rd, 1871.]

Familia STYLOPIDAA.

Synonyma.

Ordo Strepsiptera, Kirb. (a).

Sect. Dipteres Rhipidoptéeres, Lamarck (5).

Ordo Rhipiptera, Latr. (c).

Fam. Stylopide, Kirb. (d).

(a) Kirby, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Tom. XI. p. 107, 1813; Westwood,

Trans. Ent. Soe. vol. i.-ii., 1834-40; Introd. Mod. Classif. Ins. Tom. II.

p. 287, 1840; Siebold, Wiegm. Archiv. 1843, p. 187; Newport, Trans.

Linn. Soe. Lond., Tom. XX. p. 330, 1847.

(b) Lamarck, Hist. Nat. Anim. s. Vertebr. ed. i. Tom. III. p. 348, 1816;

ed. 2, Tom. IV. p. 18, 1816.

(c) Latreille, Reg. Anim. ed. i. Tom. III. p. 584, 1817.

(d) Kirby, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., loc. cit., pp. 100, 102, 104; Stephens,

Syst. Catal. Brit. Ins. Pars. I. p. 403, 1829; Westwood, op. cit., Gen.

Syn. p.86; Schaum, Catal. Coleopt. Hur. Hd. 2a, Berolini, 1862; Crotch,

Catal. of Brit. Coleopt. Cantabrigiz, 1863 ; Packard, ‘‘ Guide to the study of

Insects,’”’? Americe, 1870; Sharp, Catal. of Brit. Coleopt. Londini, 1871.

TRANS. ENT. SoC. 1872.—PaART I. (APRIL.) B

bo

Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Fam. Stylopites, Newm. (e).

Fam. Stylopides, Lacord. (f).

The vexed question of the affinities of the Stylopide,

can no longer be considered so difficult of solution as

formerly. Kirby’s first impression was, that his newly-

discovered Stylops ‘from its elytra (which, however,

are placed in a very extraordinary situation, being fixed

to the sides of the thorax), ought to be a Coleopterous

insect, ‘although it seemed” to possess but little of the

general habit and character of that class” (g). Subse-

quently, from an error of his draughtsman, in whom he

placed the utmost confidence (h), he describes these

organs as ‘apparently attached to the coxee of the an-

terior pair of legs” (i) ; and again—“ Hlytra coxis pedum

anticorum, ut videtur, affixa” (k). Hence, while advert-

ing to this as “a circumstance most singular and without

parallel in the entomological world,” he was not unnatu-

rally led to consider these insects as utterly irreconci-

lable with any of the existing Orders ; more especially

when unable to solve the difficulties of their mysterious

metamorphoses, and unconscious of any prevailing asso-

ciations, on the apparent absence of which he had been

prompted to dwell im the first instance.

Had he however been aware that those appendages

were really mesothoracical organs; had he known that

the little active hexapods since so frequently met with in

the larviform females, were in fact their own progeny, mm

their primary form; and that, moreover, from similar

minute pediculiform larvee many Coleoptera belonging to

the Rhipiphoride and Meloide are developed: it can

hardly be doubtful that Kirby himself would have been

fully persuaded that these circumstances furnished the

desired clue to their affinities.

(e) Newman, “ Zoologist,” Londini, 1847, p. 1792; Newman, idem,

Londini, 1850, p. 2684; Schaum, Catal. Coleopt. Hur. Ed. la, Berolini,

1852.

(f) Lacordaire, Gen. Coleopt. Tom. V. pars. 2, p. 634, 1859.

(g) Monogr. Apum. Angl. Vol. II. p. 112, 1802.

(h) Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Vol. XI. p. 99, 1811-13 (Note). Kirby &

Spence, Introd. to Entomology, Vol. III. p. 589, 1826 (Note).

(i) Trans. Linn. Soc., wbi supra, p. 98.

(k) Ibid, p. 111.

Stylopide. 3

Thus, the general principles laid down by him in cer-

tain rules and formularies as justifying the separation of

these insects from other Orders (/) are inapplicable, or

have rather an opposite tendency, more especially when,

even in the absence of all information as to their primary

affinities, Kirby already considered their “ metamorphosis

nearer to that of Coleoptera” than to that of any other

“ elytrophorous order” (nv).

All the arguments which have been suggested in oppo-

sition to such an alliance appear to me to have been already

triumphantly refuted by Dr. Schaum, as set forth in extenso

by Lacordaire in his carefully collected details upon this

subject (n); nor indeed can it be conceived that these

primary larve, of assimilated forms, should belong to

different orders, or expected that (in the great struggle

of life, wherein structural characters assume various de-

grees of development, or become altogether rudimentary,

in accordance with functional discipline) they should be

endowed with the self-same buccal organs, notwithstand-

ing the differences of their respective habits ; whether de-

stined to penetrate into the bodies of their larval victims in

the first instance, and afterwards to become external feeders

thereon, as in Fhipiphorus (0); or to remain compara-

tively innocuous as internal dependents upon their foster-

parents, as in Stylops and its allies; or whether, abjuring

the habits of either as alike uncongenial, they are addicted

to feed upon the egg of their victims in the first stage of

their existence, in order to monopolize the honey-store

of the former in the second stage, as in Meloé and

Sitaris (p).

Moreover these organs are found to vary in the same

identical species at different periods, according to the

respective requirements of larval development. Thus, in

M. Fabre’s most interesting and elaborate memoir on the

(1) Ibidem, pp. 94, 95.

(m) Ibidem, p. 108.

(n) Lacordaire, Genera des Coleoptéres, 1859, Vol. V. (part 2) p. 641.

Schaum, Wiegm. Archiv. 1851, II. p. 200. Siebold, Stettin Entom. Zeit.

1853, p. 133, idem (Abstr.) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2, Vol. II. (Proc.)

p. 124.

(0) Dr. T. Algernon Ghapman, Ann. and Mag. of Natural History,

4th series, Vol. VI. London, Oct. 1870.

(p) Fabre, ‘Mémoire sur l’Hypermétamorphose et les mceurs des Me-

loides,” in Ann. des Sci. Nat. 4e Sér. Zool. Vol. VII. p. 299, Paris, 1857.

Rp 2

—_

4 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

habits of the Meloide above referred to, it is shown that

in the primary larva of Sitaris the mandibles are acute

and recurved (‘aigues et recourbées,’ p. 317), well adapted

for the purpose “of lacerating the datas tegument of

the egg (pp. 328, 329), that im their secondary form, as

feeders on honey, these organs become small, obtuse, and

excavated or spoon-shaped within (‘obtuses et excavées au

coté interne en forme de cuiller,’ p. 335), and that in a

subsequent stage, which he designates as ‘‘ la troisieme

larve,” they again revert to a very acutely pointed form

(‘en pointe tres aigue,’ p. 341).

Nor under anomalous circumstances of development

and metamorphosis, amid diversified conditions and

aberrant forms, can it be considered so extraordinary

that the Stylopide should participate with such ab-

normal types, in their divergence from conventional

formularies of organization, although in many respects

closely allied with several Coleopterous groups, dis-

tinguished from all others by the same parasitic asso-

ciations (q), and, so far as hitherto ascertained, by the

same primary larval conditions, unlike those of any other

known race: as with Myodites in their rudimentary elytra

and neuration of wing; with Rhipiphorus and Hmenadia

in the longitudinal folding of the latter; with Rhipidius

in their eyeless apterous females; with the males of all

the aforesaid in their highly developed ramose antenne ;

nor less so with Meloé, Sitaris (r), and Zonitis (s), in their

remarkable coarctate pupal metamorphosis, and prelimi-

nary larval transformations.

While, therefore, harmonizing with these Coleopterous

types in so many points of habit, structure, and analogy,

from the first to the last stages of their existence, the

additional evidence which time has thus brought to bear

upon such intrinsic relations and affinities, may well

suffice, in accordance with Latreille’s suggestion (t), to

rescue them from unmerited severance and seclusion.

(q) Lacordaire ; Gen. d. Coleopt. Tom. V. p. 631.

(r) Fabre; loc cit., p. 321 (Sitaris) ; p. 353 (Meloe).

(s) Giraud; Ann. Soc. Ent. de France; ser. 4, Tom. VI. (1866) p. 494

(Zonitis mutica). Fabre; wbi supra, Tab. XVII. fig. 9 (?).

(t) Tempus ducamus, et dies alteri lucem afferrent. (Gen. Crust. et

Insect, Tom. IV. p. 388.)

Stylopide. 5

It may scarcely be fitting to dismiss the subject of

these affinities, without adverting (however briefly) to

the arguments which have been advanced, from time to

time, as justifying the association of this family with

various orders, or indicating connecting links with several

of them.

Although the relations suggested in this respect have,

in fact, been so numerous and complex, as almost to

have rung the changes throughout these orders; it

was reserved for a distinguished entomologist of late, to

complete the series, by absorbing the Stylopide into

his Neuroptera, as a family allied to the Phryganeidee (u).

Dr. Gerstiicker had already repudiated the primitive

larval and metamorphotic affinities of the Stylopidce

with the Meloide (unknown to former writers, prior to

the interesting discoveries of Siebold in 1843, of Newport

in 1847, and of Fabre in 1857, elsewhere referred to),

because in the one case, the larvee subsist upon the bodies

of their victims, and in the other upon their honey-store

But the self-same primitive larval analogy has more

recently been detected in the Coleopterous parasite of the

Wasp, as recorded by Dr. Algernon Chapman in his

*« Life History of Rhipiphorus paradowus” (y), which may

well serve to reconcile all scruples as regards the twofold

associations of the Stylopide with the Rhipiphoride on

the one hand, and with the Meloide on the other.

Previously, however, to this discovery, our lamented

member, Dr. Schaum, had confuted, with his usual

ability (z), the objections raised by Dr. Gerstiicker as

to the alleged incongruity of any such relations; re-

butting the arguments advanced in support of their

transfer to the Newroptera; and calling attention to the

striking analogy subsisting between the former and the

larviform females of Rhipidius blattarum, whose primitive

larvee (still unknown) may not improbably be found to

correspond with those of Rhipiphorus (Metccus, Gerst.),

Meloé, and Sitaris.

(uw) Handbuch der Zoologie, Tom. II. p. 78, 1863. 3. Zunft. Strepsip-

tera, Kirby (Rhipiptera, Latr.), Facherfltigler. 5 Fam. Stylopide, Kirby.

(z) Wiegm. Archiv. 1861, p. 328.

(y) Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. ser. 4, Vol. VI. p. 314, 1870.

(2) Wiegm. Archiv. 1863? p. 145.

6 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

T also possess a female of the allied genus Myodites,

to the body and legs of which fifteen hexapod larva,

differing from any hitherto met with, are firmly attached.

On the other hand, it would. seem difficult to conceive

how the Stylopide can be considered by Dr. Gerstiicker

as a Family naturally associated by its essential characters

(“schliesst sich durch ihre wesentlichen Charaktere na-

turgemiiss”) with the Neuwroptera in general, and the

Phryganeide in particular (a).

Nothing, in fact, can be more dissimilar in their struc-

ture and adaptation than the stunted, leathery and vein-

less mesothoracical appendages (‘Stummeln’) of the

former, as compared with the expansive membranous

corresponding organs of flight, with branching veins,

of the latter, unless exceptionally rudimentary in both

pairs, as Dr. Schaum has pointed out (b); nor less so,

the remarkable characteristic differences in the antenne,

which are long, setaceous (‘borstenformig’) and multi-

articulate in the Phryganeide ; while also utterly irre-

concilable in their aquatic habits, their peculiar self-

constructed larval abodes, their independent existence,

and entire series of transformations from ovum to imago.

Little attention has hitherto been paid to the neuration

of the wings (c) in Strepsipterous insects; nor indeed has

much regard to accuracy been observed in the delinea-

tion thereof. In the figures of Xenos Peckii by Bauer, in

1811 (d), and of Xenos Rossii, K. (X. vesparum, Rossi)

as supplied by Jurine in 1816 (e), the neuration essen-

tially differs; nor have any verbal explanations thereof

been afforded in either case.

Curtis has supplied a description of the wings of his

Halictophagus (1832); but scarcely in an intelligible form,

without the aid of the figure itself to interpret his mean-

ing; while in his Stylops Dalii (1828) this character is

. hardly noticed, and only indefinitely adverted to in his

Elenchus (1831). But although these wings are, in all

(a) Handbuch ; p. 79.

(b) Wiegm. Archiv. loc. cit., p. 147

(c) I have applied to the veining of the wings throughout, the designa-

tion of ‘‘newration,” ‘“neura,’’? &e.; in order to be consistent with the

references made herein to Kirby’s names for these veins, without alteration.

(d) Linn. Trans. loc. cit., Tab. IX. fig. 1.

(¢) Memorie della R. A. delle Scienze di Torino, Tom. XXIII. p. 50,

1818.

Stylopide. cf

cases, constructed more or less in accordance with one

uniform type, it is fittmg that some general principles

should be laid down, whereby comparisons may be insti-

tuted, and all definitions framed upon a common basis.

Among the wings of the several orders of insects, set

forth with the utmost care and precision by Kirby and

Spence, in their celebrated “ Introduction to Entomo-

logy” (Vol. IIT. Pl. X), the only example affording any ob-

vious analogy in this respect, is that of the Coleopterous

type (fig. 4).

In this indeed, as notably described in the text itself

(p. 626), “the first thing that strikes the physiologist in

surveying a wing belonging to an insect of this order, is

the general arrangement of the nervures ; which are so

placed that the required degree of tension may be given

to every part of this organ: thus, some are nearly

straight; others run in a serpentine direction; others are

forked, with one branch recurrent and another proceeding

onwards ; others again are insulated, or do not originate

_ from the base of the wing, or from other nervures, but

are merely placed to strengthen an open space of it.

Another striking circumstance with regard to them is,

that the nervures form few or no closed areolets, except

in the costal area, where they are inconspicuous.” Who

would not suppose, after careful comparison, that this

lucid description of a Coleopterous wing had _ been

expressly founded upon one of the Stylopidw, as the

gelected type?

Kirby elsewhere observes (f) that in the latter,

“the veining of the wings is very simple,” and that

“in this they somewhat resemble the Coleopterous

genera” (Hister, Necrophorus, &c.) which he quotes; but

while noticing also that ‘ they fold longitudinally,” it is

remarkable that he should have been led to look rather

to the Orthoptera than to the Rhipiphoride for an affinity

in this respect.

In proceeding to a more minute examination of the

several nervures, as adverted to by Kirby and Spence in

their Synoptical Table of Nomenclature (p. 353) and

in the subsequent description of the nervures themselves

(pp. 374, 375, 626), we find, in the first instance,

that in the metathoracic wing of the Stylopide, the

costal nervure (neura costalis) is thickened at its base in

(f) Linn. Trans. Vol. XI. p. 101.

8 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

conjunction with the short mediastinal nervure, more or

less separate and distinct in itself; followed by the post-

costal, furcating at its base with the eaterno-medial or

“ third principal nervure of the wing,” traversing the disc

more or less, and corresponding (as it would seem) with

what Kirby has described as the ‘‘ transverse fold in the

middle” of a Coleopterous wing (Linn. Trans., /. c., p.

101) ; in some instances continued to the exterior mar-

gin, as in Myodites and Rhipiphorus.

Kirby and Spence divide the fore-wing into three

areas, namely the Costal (Area costalis), the Intermediate

(Area intermedia), and the Anal (Area analis) ; the first

of which comprises (in Coleoptera) “ that part of the wing

lying between the anterior margin and the postcostal

nervure:” the second, ‘that part of the wing lying be-

tween the costal area and the anal nervure:” and the

third, ‘that part of the wing which lies between the anal

nervure and the posterior margin.” The externo-medial

nervure as aforesaid may serve to divide this inter-

mediate area into two sections, which I have defined

in the following pages as the upper and lower imterme-

diate areas (area intermedia superior and inferior) ;

the former of which is usually furnished (as in Myodites

and Lhipiphorus) with two insulated nervures, either

double or single, extending backwards from the ex-

terior margin, though not always in connection there-

with ; situated between the costal area and the trans-

verse externo-medial nervure; the jirst beg near the

apex of the wing and nearly parallel to the costa (neura

prima insulata apicalis) ; and the second, between the first

and the externo-medial (newra secundainsulata discoidalis) ,

usually longer than the first, and frequently brought

into close proximity with the externo-medial itself, so as

to appear in some cases almost furcate therewith, although

typically insulated. Some of the other nervures also

exhibit a tendency to assume a double form.

The lower intermediate area presents always an uniform

type of three somewhat approximating nervures radiating

from the base of the wing, inspissated from their origin

and becoming exceedingly slender beyond the centre,

although prolonged in a straight line to the exterior

margin. ‘These nervures may be considered to cor-

respond with the interno-medial (or “ fourth principal

nervure”’), the subinterno-medial, and the anal, of Kirby

and Spence.

Stylopide. 9

Furthermore, a very delicate, straight, continuous ner-

vure, intervenes in all cases about midway between the

externo- and interno-medial, corresponding with the sub-

externo-medial of the same writers (ibid. p. 375).

In some cases, the faint trace of a spurious supplemen-

tary nervure (neura spuria, ibid. p. 376) would seem to

exist between the subinterno- and interno-medial ner-

vures, which, not being constant, even in the same species,

can only be regarded as abnormal.

Thus, all the elements of the metathoracical wing de-

fined as the normal type in Coleoptera, are distinctly

portrayed ; coupled also with the “ striking circumstance”

already adverted to, that “few or no closed areolets” are

to be found therein.

These results, with the principal nervures brought pro-

minently forward, may be tabulated as follows :—

Neurarum Ale Synopsis.

Neen a. Neura costalis, K.

Gustav: b. Neura mediastina, K.

are ina c. Neura postcostalis, K.

4 H d. Neura la insulata (apicalis).

M | cs e. Neura 2a insulata (discoidalis).

f| = f. Neura externo-media, K.

s

RN

& q ( = g- Neura subexterno-media, K.

es 2 h. Neura interno-media, K.

4 | & i. Neura subinterno-media, K.

J) 8 k. Neura analis, K.

Area :

Flin) IG. ‘ l. Margo analis.

The structure of the antennz, which vary in the

terminal joints, exhibits a certain uniformity of organi-

zation in the three basal joints ; the stipes consisting in

all cases of ¢wo short joints (g) ; the third being invari-

ably produced into a divergent exarticulate branch ; and

the fourth emanating from the base of the latter.

(q) Kirby, in his general characters, defines the antenne as ‘basi

stipite communi crasso bi—vel triarticulato” (Linn. Trans., U. c., p. 109) ;

and in Xenos (p. 114)-he describes them as “ stipite triarticulato.” So

also in the description of his Tab. IX. fig. 10, b, ‘‘ the triarticulate stipes

of the antenne” (p. 121) in Xenos Peckii is indicated ; the third joint, as

-represented in the plate, being in reality the basal cwp of the first exarti-

culate branch. Siebold also in his X. sphecidarwm (N. Schrift. d. Nat.

Gesch. 1839, p. 79) defines the stipes as triarticulate, the third joint

being the shortest. (For position of exarticulate branch, vide post, p. 21.)

10 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

By the discriminating characters derived from the

shape and number of these several joints (which, in con-

junction with certain differences in those of the tarsi,

have served as a basis for generic distinctions, and are

also found to maintain a constant restriction to certain

exclusive associations of birth and origin), it may as readily

be determined to which section of the Stylopide any

nurturing race or foster-parents may have afforded suste-

nance, as vice versa to which tribe of the latter any of

the aforesaid should be affiliated, in so far as such con-

necting links have been duly ascertained in other cases.

Hence it would seem to follow, as a necessary corollary,

that all combinations of such genera into natural groups

or subfamilies, should be made in accordance with their

respective alliances; whereby these associations may be

consistently defined and maintained. In fact, there is

no other possible criterion for properly assorting the

females, than by classifying the nurturing species them-

selves in conjunction therewith.

The genus Xenos, however, as at present constituted

(by reason of a mere coincidence in the number of joints

in the antenne and tarsi), is subject to the controlling

destinies of different families and tribes, so widely

separated from each other in the most vital elements of

their existence, as to render any artificial union between

their respective dependents, founded upon this limited

basis, utterly irreconcilable with such obvious incompati-

bilities of origin and descent.

Thus the true Xenides consorting with the social Ves-

pide, must be reared from their primary hexapod condi-

tion in from thirty to forty days: such being the term

within which the larve of the Social Wasps attain the

imago state; the females of the latter hybernating with

those of the former, which produce their larval brood the

ensuing year.

In marked contrast with these hybernating Xenides,

which, from the peculiar exigencies thus imposed, are

slow to produce their larval brood from females of the

preceding year, butrapid in their ultimate metamorphoses ;

others have been comprised in the same group, which

are nurtured by the larvee of solitary wasps and fossorial

Hymenoptera, 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

Stylopide. 11

maturity ; involving a corresponding detention for their

associated dependents: which, after their long pro-

tracted larval condition as aforesaid, must, from the same

inevitable necessity, produce their young the self-same

year in which they themselves complete their transforma-

tions, in order that (like the Stylopides) their brood may

obtain access to the future larva-cells of their non-hyber-

nating foster-parents.

These very distinct groups must necessarily be divided

into different subfamilies, readily distinguished from each

other; the true Xenides (nurtured by the social wasps)

having the two exarticulate branches of the antenns

tapering, sinuous, and divergent; whereas in the others,

which I would distinguish as Pseudowenides, they are

compressed, forcipate, and recumbent.

This latter group, however, as thus separated from the

true Xenides, comprises in itself the fosterlings of two

very dissimilar tribes; namely, of the Hwmenide, and

other solitary wasps on the one hand, and of the Sphegide,

with their fossorial allies, on the other. When, therefore,

we find, in other instances, different genera, and different

species, of the same nurturing tribe, maintaining exclusive

associations with their respective foster-dependents, how

much the more might not the same principles be held to

apply to the dependents of different tribes, not indeed

so utterly irreconcilable with each other, as to preclude

all possible intercommunion of race between such sub-

sidiary groups from adventitious circumstances ?

It remains, therefore, to be seen, how far the lines of

demarcation which separate these fostermg tribes may

be more or less ostensibly reflected in their foster-

progeny.

But, amid the numerous instances in which the exuvie

of male Stylopide, or their derelict females, have been

met with among the different genera of Mossores, Latr.

(as tabulated in the sequel), the Huropean Xenes Spheci-

darum, and the Brazilian Xenos Westwoodit, described and

figured in our Transactions by Mr. Templeton (h), have

alone been detected hitherto in the winged form; to

which I am now enabled to add a third species obtained

on several occasions (both males and females) from one

of the European Nyssonide.

(hk) Second series; Vol. III. p. 51.

12 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

This species appears to correspond with Mr. Temple-

ton’s, in the structure of the basal joints of the antennz ;

and likewise in the peculiar conformation of the third

joint, which (as in the Brazilian species), is “suddenly ~

turned off at right angles ;” both branches being tumid

and distorted ; and although in the latter, the fourth

joint is described ‘‘as about one-fourth part” longer

than the third, this would hardly seem to constitute a

reliable generic character, for the converse appears to

be the case in X. Sphecidarum, where the penultimate

branch or inner article (innere Glied) is stated by Dr.

Siebold to be always somewhat longer than the terminal or

outer one (l.c., p. 79); while in my species, there would

seem to be no perceptible difference in their respective

length. The Senator Von Heyden also mentions a Xenos

which he had obtained from Polistes gallicus, in which

the branches of the antennz “‘ were very unequal im

length” (Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., Tom. 1, p. lxxiv.).

But I also obtained from a specimen of Hpipone spi-

nipes, L. (captured in the vicinity of the burrows of the

Bembecinus, from which the preceding species was de-

rived), three other males so closely corresponding there-

with, in the peculiar distorted conformation of the antenne,

essentially different from the straight flattened branches

of those which I have found with other Odynert, that,

although emanating from two distinct nurturing tribes,

they would seem to be congeneric, if not otherwise

identical.

Hence it follows, that in those cases where the economy

and habit of the fostering races correspond, no distinctive

limits can be affixed to the foster-progeny, which, under

such circumstances, may be equally adapted to abide with

either.

From the uncertainty which attaches to a considerable

number of fosterlings whose existence alone, as associ-

ated with various genera and species of these nurturing

tribes, has hitherto been recorded, but of whose charac-

ters no information has yet been obtained, it would seem

far from improbable that many novelties have yet to be

detected among these occult forms; whereof one of the

most remarkable has been dimly foreshadowed in the

exuvial traces of an allied race among the Homoptera, as

adverted to in the concluding paragraph (vide post, p. 48).

Stylopide. 13

Characteres e maribus desumptt.

(Descriptiones Kirbianz mutatis mutandis. )

Corpus oblongum, subcylindricum, cute cornea, cata-

phractum.

‘ Caput sessile, trunco latius, transversum, magnum.

Os cum labro, labio, et maxillis (i) obsoletum et vix

ullum.

— Mandibule [mawille, Curtis (k) ] cornez, elongate,

lineares, angustissime, edentule, apice forficate, acute,

sub capite apud basin palporum intus inserte.

Palpi duo biarticulati, valde distantes, sub capite

inserti. [In Paraxeno Westwoodii triarticulati? vid. post

p. 47.]

Antenne inter oculos in acetabulo frontis insert; 4,

5, 6, vel 7-articulate, stipite biarticulato, articulis bre-

Vissimis, articulo tertio salteom in ramum exarticulatum

producto.

Oculi magni, plus minusve pedunculati [vel subsessiles

—Hlenchus], capite porrecti, hemispheerici, hexagonis

crystallinis planiusculis septo elevato separatis.

Truncus oblongus.

Prothoraz collariformis, brevissimus, transversus.

Mesothoraa (Dorsolum, Kirb.) transversus brevis, elytris

angulis anticis utrinque affixis.

Metathoraz ingens; scutello [preescuto, Audouin (() }

subtriangulari, inter alarum angulos basales posito (mm) ;

lumbi [epimera, Aud.] magni, latera trunci fere tota

occupantes, subrhomboidales, convexiusculi, lateribus de-

flexis, concavis ; interlumbiwm [scutum, Aud.] triangulare,

vertice acuminato ; postlumbium [scutellum, Aud.] declive

aut verticale, breve, transversum, corneum vel membra-

naceum ; proscutellum [postscutellum, Aud.] conicum,

subcalceoliforme, productum, convexum, ascendens, ab-

dominis basin obumbrans et muniens, subtus cavum.

(i) Kirby, Trans. Linn. Soc., loc. cit., pp. 1038, 109.

(k) Curtis, Brit. Entom., Fol. 226, 385.

(t) Audouin, Ann. Sci. Nat. Tom. I. pp. 97, et 416.

(m) Kirby, loc. cit., p. 105, Tab. IX, fig. 1, 2e.

14, Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Pectus et Sternum sub pedibus anticis delitescentia,

vix discernenda.

Peristethium (Illiger) a pedibus intermediis omnino

occultatum.

Scapularia (Ilhiger) subtriangularia, ante basin alarum

posita (Karby, fig. 4c).

Pleure (Illiger) longitudinales, latiuscule, et feré

lanceolatee (ibid, fig. 4d).

Parapleure (Uliger) longitudinales, sublineares, anticé

attenuate, apice subclavate et inter basin alarum et

scapularia interposite, pleuris a parte inferiori parallellee

(ibid, fig. 4.e).

Mesostethium (Iliger) amplum, subpanduriforme, pos-

ticé medio longitudinaliter canaliculatum ; mediosterno aut

poststerno exstante nullo (ibid, fig. 5a).

Femoralia magna, crassa, apice rotundata, posticé at-

tenuata, basi gibba, abdomen utrinque munientia (adem,

heel, 21).

Hlytra lateralia, distantia, distorta, coriacea, linearia

vel feré cochleariformia, alas nullo modo tegentia.

Alc ample, submembranacee, circuli quadrantis figura

emule, longitudinaliter plicatiles, radiate [sive neuris

plurimis divergentibus, aliisque insulatis]. (Vide ante

neurarum tabulam synopticam.)

Pedes compressi, anterioribus 4 approximatis, posticis

remotis.

Coxe anteriores 4 minime, vix distinguende ; postice

longiores mag's conspicue.

Trochanteres femorum basin omnino intercipientes ;

anterioribus 4 elongatis, magnis, femoribus longitudine

feré zequales ; posticis brevioribus, coxis subeequalibus.

Femora feré semiovata,

Tibie apicem versus sensim crassiores, inermes.

Tarsi 2- 3- vel 4- articulati; articulo primo reliquis

longiori; sequentibus feré obconicis, subtus membrani

vesiculari suffultis, apice dilatatis, emarginatis ; extimo

mutico.

Abdomen marginatum, molle, segmentis octo, podice

minuto lineari adunco supra terminatum; subtus pro-

cessu genitali longiusculo, lineari, styliformi, reflexo,

basi dilatato, munitum.

Stylopide. 15

Characteres e feeminis desumpti.

Foemina aptera, larviformis, cui oculi, antenne, trophi-

que desunt; vivipara, abdomine intra corpus altorum

latente ; cephalothorace tantum projiciente. Hic squa-

mosus, corneus, obtusus, basi in cervicem contracto,

cochleariformis, capite cum pro- meso- metathoraceque

(segmentis quatuor) in unum conjunctis; disco superne

convexo, subtus concavo, angulis posticis subinflatis ;

stigmate unico laterali utrinque basin versus (n), vel

marginis sub tegmine celato (0); esophagi aditu super-

ficiel convex apicem versus (p); processu corneo, minuto

transversali (seu mandibula rudimentaria (q) ) mm non-

nullis, tuberculove porrecto palpiformi in aliis (7) , utrinque

posito; paulo retro arcu subelevato (ubi in marium

pupariis operculi sutura invenitur), quo canalis vaginalis

introitus adest.

Abdomen segmentis novem, molle, oblongo-ovale, am-

plum ; saccum flaccidum absque aditu anali constituens ;

canale interno incubationis lato superne jacente ; in quem

per aditus parvos, rotundos, tres usque quinque, per cutem

pellucidam segmentorum abdominalium secundi, tertu,

quarti (s), nonnullis quintique (ft), aliis etiam sexti (w),

translucentes, tot tubi antice curvati ab antro ventrali

seriatim ducunt, quibus ingressibus larvee primitive inter

ovaria lacerata vagantes, atrium petunt ut denique per

vestibulum thoracicum gradatim evadant.

(v) Kirby, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., loc. cit., Tab. VIII. fig. 4; Siebold,

N. Schrift. d. Naturforsch. Gesellsch. in Danz. 1839; III. 2, p. 74, Tab.

ITI. fig. 62, a, a.

(0) Siebold, Wiegm. Archiv. 18438, p. 149, Tab. VIT. 4c, ¢ (X. Rossii).

(p) Siebold, ibid., p. 140, Tab. VII. fig. 3, 5e ; Westwood, Trans. Ent.

Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. 1, Tab. VIII. fig. 21.

(q) Siebold, Wiegm. Archiv. loc. cit., Tab. VII. fig. 3, 5, 14e** (Xenos);

Westwood, ubi supra, ser. 2a, Tom. II. Tab. XY. fig. 23 (Pseudoxenos).

(r) Westwood, wbi supra, ser. 2a, Tom. I. Tab. VIII. fig. 2a-i (Hylec-

tlrus); Westwood, ubi supra, ser. 2a, Tom. II. Tab. XVI. fig. 15, 16, 17,

20 (Hylecthrus).

(s) Siebold, N. Schrift. 1. c., pp. 75, 85, Tab. III. fig. 62, c, c, ¢ (X.

Sphecidarum).

(t) Siebold, Wiegm. Archiv. l. c., pp. 149, 161, Tab. VIL. fig. lg* (X.

Rossii).

(wu) Siebold, Wiegm. Archiv. l. c., pp. 141 (sect. 18) et 149 (Stylops).

16 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Metamorphosis.

Larva primitiva ab ovo in corpore materno maturatur,

hexapus, saltatoria, elongata, convexa, coriacea, segmen-

tis 13, tuberculis analibus exclusis (x), setd longa caudali

utrinque ; capite plano semicirculari, angulis posticis

stemmatiferis (y); antenne minime (z) vel obsolete (a) ;

pedibus motu anomalo, sese duplici serie anticé posticé

trajicientibus (b) ; tarsis inarticulatis, unguibus niullis.

Xendum larve primitive pedibus anterioribus 4 tarso-

rum apice carneo, inflato, vesiculari (c) ; posticis simpli-

cibus ; Stylopidum larvee tarsis minus dilatatis.

Hee larvee primitivee, ut altorum in nidos transferantur,

apud matrem cum altoribus restant, donec in cellulas eva-

dentes, intra corpus larvarum penetrantes, post hebdo-

madam pelliculé dejecté metamorphosin perficiunt (d) ;

atque sub forma secundarii molli alba apoda videntur ;

segmentis decem, quorum unum cephalothoracicum mag-

num subnasutum, larve primitive segmentis 4 anticis

eequivalens; marium ultimo acuminato (e); foeminarum

ultimo rotundato (f).

Larva secundaria (marium) adulta, altoris ultima meta-

morphosi vix subité, naso corneo subobtuso, alternatim

transverse dextro sinistroque operando, per membranam

tenuem inter abdominis segmenta aditum perrumpit ;

ubi segmentorum anteriorum cutis mollis sensim indu-

ratur.

Feminarum larva secundaria, cephalothorace proji-

ciente, uti sub foeminz descriptione ante narratur ; vix

ultra mutatur.

(x) Westwood, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.; ser. la, Tom. II. p. 184, Tab.

XY. fig. 13 (Stylops; ser. 2a, Tom. I. Tab. VIII. fig. 3 (Hylecthrus). Sie-

bold, Wiegm. Archiv. loc. cit., Tab. VII. fig. 15 (Xenos) ; Siebold, ibidem,

Tab. VIII. fig. 16 (Stylops). Newport, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. Tom. XX.

pp- 341-343, Tab. XIV. fig. 21, 22 (Stylops).

(y) Siebold, wht supra, p. 155, Tab. VII. fig. 157 (Xenos).

(z) Siebold, ibidem, Tab. VII. fig. 16m (Stylops).

(a) Westwood, loc. cit., ser. la, Tom. II. p. 185 (Stylops). Newport,

loc. cit., p. 362.

(b) Westwood, loc. cit., sec. 1, Tom. II. p. 186.

(c) Siebold, ubi supra, fig. 15 (X. Rossii).

(d) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2, Tom. II. p. 127 (Xenos).

(e) Siebold, loc. cit., sect. 12, p. 189, Tab. VII. fig. 10, 11, 12.

(f) Siebold, loc. cit., sect. 12, p. 189, Tab. VII. fig. 6, 13.

Stylopide. V3

Mas tamen externé in puparium cylindricum, operculo

capitis convexo, subrotundato (Stylopidum) , vel transversé

compresso, subarcuato (Xenidum), anticé tuberculato,

oculorum situ fenestrato, convertitur ; imprimis lacteum,

nasi circuiti oculorumque regione tantum brunneis; tunc

cito corneum, castaneum vel piceum extra fit, cepha-

lothorace basin versus stigmate unico minuto utrinque

instructo (q).

Intri puparium nympha (seu pupa vera) pallida,

cuncta imaginis organa exhibens, conformatur; que

brevi nigricans, intraque hebdomadam feré pellicula

dejecta, ad operculum propinquans, per latera fenestrata,

quibusdam (Xenidibus et Pseudoxenidibus ) fenestrulis hexa-

gonis instructa (h), circumspicit, ut in hora propitia, luce

instigante, capitis impetti operculum dejiciat et per auras

imago emancipata evolet.

Annotatio. De forma primitivi pupe vere, ut in

Sitaris casu a Clar. D. Fabro sub larva tertid narratur et

delineatur (7), in Strepsipteris nihil adhuc constat. Talis

metamorphosis transitoria intra puparium in quo denique,

pellicula iterum dejecta, ipsa pupa (seu nympha) evolvi-

tur, ut pseudo-pupe potius quam larve redivive charac-

teribus induta, mihi existimanda videtur.

In Meloé, cujus metamorphoses jamdudum a Domo.

Newport descriptz fuere, “ larva-adulta seu pseudo-larva”

ab ipso in tabula “‘ cwm pedibus” delineatur et expli-

catur (k), quare cum “ pseudo-chrysalide” Fabri haud

identica foret, ut ab illo existimatur (/). De ultima

tamen a D. Newport vix perspicue narratur, et quasi per

saltum ad “nympham seu pupam in pseudo-larve cute

.

(9) Siebold, loc. cit., sect. 12, p. 139, Tab. VII. fig. 7, 8, ¢.

(h) Kirby, loc. cit., p. 115, Tab. VIII. fig. 7, a. Siebold, loc. cit., Tab.

VII. fig. 9, i.

(i) Fabre, loc. cit., pp. 340, 365, Tab. XVII. fig. 5. Lacordaire, loc. cit.,

p- 638,

(k) Newport, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Tom. XX. (pars 2) pp. 320, 356,

Tab. XIV. fig. 15-17, 1847.

(l) Fabre, loc. cit., p. 356.

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1872.—PART I. (APRIL.) C

18 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

dejecta sua involtam” transgreditur. Sed que in Sitare

eadem quoque in Meloé transformatio intermedia, a D.

Fabro verificata, fit (¢bid. p. 358).

In Rhipiphoro paradoxo larva adulta (absque pupario)

mox a Dre. T. A. Chapman descripta et delineata est (7m),

quamvis de metamorphosi ejusdem in pupam veram

hodie ignoramus. Rhipiphororwm tamen larvas primitivas

plures intra Vesparum larvas (ut pariter a Stylopidis

efficitur) detexit; que: posted’ exeundo metamorphosin

subeuntes, pellicula in aditu relicta, larvas ipsas ab externo

vorant.

Sitarium et Meloium larvee secundarie de melle viscoso

in Anthophorarum cellulis aluntur; quze in statu primi-

tivo unicum pabulum ab ovo petunt; quod vix elabens

ab oviductu dexterrime attinent, ubi contactus glutinosus

fatalis fuisset (n).

Hi omnes tamen, quamvis inter se anomali; moribus

divergentibus, metamorphosi varid, trophis mutabilibus

(0), pabulo diverso, characteribus Proteis ; ad Stylopidas

plus minusve appropinquantes, in vinculis affinitatis

coligantur; in familiis proximis, ut opinor, cum iisdem

consociari debent.

Observatio. HH larvee primitive. trophis in foeminarum

cephalothorace subversis (yp) constat ut superficies con-

vexa que ab abdomine altorum extus exhibetur, regionem

ventralem, concavaque subtus dorsalem, constituunt.

Maribus tamen, ob altorum segmenta abdomuinalia plus

minusve constricta ut videtur, imagines nonnull (Stylo-

pidum) cum pedibus super altorum segmenta sistentibus,

alizeve (Xenidum et Pseudowenidum) inverse, declarantur ;

quo modo pariter larve adultz cephalothorace exserto

metamorphosin subeunt; Stylopidwm operculo capitis

subrotundo, Xenidum oblongo-transversali (vide in Hy-

lecthii maribus larvee adultee ef puparii positionem, ut in

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. serie 2da, Tom. II. tab. xvi. fig.

6 * et 9 delineatur).

(m) Chapman, loc. cit., p. 324, Tab. XV. fig. L.

(n) Fabre, loc. cit., p. 326 (Sitaris) ; p. 353 (Meloé).

(0) Ibid. Sitaris larva primitiva mandibulis acutis, recurvis (p. 317) ;

larva secundaria mandibulis obtusis, intus excavatis, cochleariformibus

(p- 335) ; larva tertia (in pupario) mandibulis acutissimis (p. 341).

(p) Siebold, Weigm. Archiv. 1843, pp. 149, 152, 159, Tab. VII. fig. 14.

Stylopide. 19

SUB-FAMILI As.

Stylopidarum subfamiliarum divisiones secundum alto-

rum affinitates, generum tamen propria structura,

determinentur. Specierum definitiones adhuc editz

seepe ambigue resultant, et potius e nutritoribus quam

selpsarum characteribus discernende sunt. Foeminarum

preecipue, nisi altoribus adjuvantibus, discrimina quasi

desunt. Quamobrem in subfamilias quinque, propter

consociationum diversitates, mihi distribuere visum est.

§ Synopsis subfamiliarum ab altoribus desumpta.

Divisio A. HyMENOPTEROBIZE.

Sub-familie.

Melliferorum Latr. incole . é : . 1. Stylopides.

Formicidarum Leach incole 7 4 : . 2. Myrmecolacides.

Vespidarum socialiumincola . - 5 . 3. Xenides.

Vespidarum solitarium et . . : : : .

Fossorium Latr.incole . : : ° } 2b SAREE

Divisio B. HomorrreroBim.

Fulgoridarum Leach incolw# - : 5 EO:

o 2

20 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

§ § Synopsis Generum e structura desumpta.

Divisio A.

Sub-fam. 1. Srynopipzs.

Antenne 7 articulw. Tarsi 3 articulati i

EP) 6 ” bP) 4 2 2

3” 5 2 3) 4 ” 3

iB) 5 3° > 2 ” 4,

Sub-fam. 2. MyrmMrconacipEs.

Antenne 6 (vel 7?) articulate. Tarsidarticulati . 5.

Sub-fam. 3. XENIDES.

Antenne 4 articulate. Tarsi 4 articulati . :

Antennarum ramis flexuosis, fe pee 6

apice acutis o

Alarum neuris insulatis ambabus simplicibus

Sub-fam. 4. PsrupoxENIDES.

Antenne 4 articulate. Tarsi 4 articulati.

Antennarum ramis tenieformibus, compressis ;

articuli 3tii cubito basali subrotundato;

apice obtusis 5

Alarum neura insulata apicali “duplice |

Ab discoidali simplice >|

Antennarum ramis distortis, tumidis, compres-

sis; articuli 3tii cubito basali prominulo, 8

rectangulariter recurvo; apice obtusis

Alarum neuris insulatis ambabus duplicatis

Divisio B.

Sub-fam. 5.

(Homopterabiarum characteres adhuc ignoti) . 9.

(q) An hujus sectionis (?) vide postea sub p. 24, not.

Halictophagus.

Stylops.

Hylecthrus.

Elenchus (q).

Myrmecolaz.

Xenos.

Pseudoxenos:

Paravenos.

(r) The description and figure of the individual upon which this division

is established, will be described by Professor Westwood in a subsequent

article, in which figures illustrating some of the details contained in the

present memoir will also be given.—J. O. W.

Stylopidee. 21

Annotatio, Antennarum articulus tertius, in ramum

exarticulatum productus, nunc infra, nunc extra, vel intra,

secundum genera et familias situm varium habet.

In Halictophago, lobi cuncti eaterné (at, antennis late-

raliter deflexis, posticé) producuntur. In Stylope, ramus

exarticulatus infra (Kirby, 1813), sive ewterné subtus

(Westwood, Introd. Tom. II. p. 291, fig. 93, 5), evadet.

In Hylecthro, hic ramus (antennis pariter deflexis) retro

locatur, alterum ramum eatrorswm ferens. In Elencho et

Myrmecolace, ramus exarticulatus lateraliter vel postice

exstat.

In Xenidibus et Pseudoxenidibus rami precedentibus

converse positi sunt; nempe (antennis porrectis) articuli

tertii pars producta que in Stylopidibus (antennis ita

porrectis) ab extra est, in his ab intra conspicitur. Sin

autem antenne transverse dextra sinistraque vertuntur,

idem ramus (Artic. 3s.) qui in Stylopidibus subtus vel

retro jacet, in his antice invenitur.

Divisio A. HYMENOPTEROBILA.

Sub-fam. 1. SryLoprpzs.

Character essentialis.

Hymenopterorum melliferorum Latr. incole.

Stylopide hujus sub-familiz intra larvas per plures

menses alitee, pari passu metamorphosin lente subeuntes,

anno sequente simul cum ipsis altoribus in lucem evadere

expectant.

Generis Hlenchi status, sive cum Melliferis sive cum

aliis consociandus, adhuc anceps.

Mr. S. S. Saunders on

22

‘OLST ‘Esp ‘d “oxy ‘opmy ‘prvyorg [**'' stprer0q

woLoMLy |v ag ‘pond -y| & P

“+*(¢ SBUL StyUapes@ad we)

“PIT “A “TeyeO “Wg “sNpT “TPTUATG i TAS “osuodsap "7 | §

"70 *90] “UITAY “Bay “AND “BLD |BLOG BAON |-"""* YPLULG (4) “Dungora “7 Po [rv Kern) “niewpivig “Ss "S

*WOprgy “ec stew ew eneeee YW *$2.lqn]vg.1ng Vy

“9G "TOF “WA “quNT ‘stg c BU QC RUCCCOnIPS <5 ‘sy prqn) ‘V rs i) fKeseeoeeece oar) “yo "gS

“VIHA VUNOrITdld *VINLVd “SUUOLTY “SOXas “Sa10ads

‘Aqity ‘SHOTALS °Z snuey

cc ee ee neweee BSE ‘snqozowmupnnbd ‘H ro) é

“maprgy “ sue naeige ens cake “7900090 ‘HE a pitelets seg

“TETATUIG ‘moO “snl Ul ce Jesces OST TUO) ‘snrpuUnorgns ‘H ro wee eeenee é

cc ce sere eeeeeeee “mug ‘snynbuo} ‘H 4 sees ed

“maprgy ce POR ROCLLD sf ‘snynosnupryvU "Tal 4 ee eeeeene é

"6ZL “d ie ‘TOT, 4 “IOS ‘puory ‘g “WT IL ‘TTA 6c SDL. f DOSSIC & ‘sna oa 5 oo

"SSb TOF IMG “FUR ‘SAMO [rere BEPUEY foe qaTy ‘snyodw sngoryo 2 seroreg Gswing “HT

*VIHAVUNOITAIa *VIULVI “SHUOLTVY “SOXas “Sa10ads

‘SIND ‘SOOVHdOLOIIVH ‘I snaep

‘VOILCONAS VINGVL WOYHIOddS LH NOWHNAD

23

Stylopide.

‘Bidns qn ygiug |" BPLLOLT |r MG ‘DUL]pUWWIs “PV

cc seeee snydAngy teen eeeee “QB iL ‘pr.vmuUoquna Vv

oe oe ween Seem LOL *syrqniwpoa ‘Vv

“maprgy oe beeen eeeeee ‘quit ‘910D40Y4 Vv

‘O1}S0U "sny{ Uy}

“ .

(13 ce ene nnewee eee eeee Ss ‘saciid Vv

“maprgy ce ee it ;

‘TIQVIMIG “Mog ‘su, Uy “cc been eeeenees “Tg purjrrdo ‘vy

“wa prgy * “ -T “PUDUAMEH "7

“Maprgy de be eee eee "yy ‘oynasod *y

“wma pvgy ce DODO U REEL yf ‘DINyQuUnxy Vv

“‘eidns Iqn WAIULg 30 SuLoyorg ce sereeseoeees TISONT ‘SUDLIDA “YW

“UWMAPrQT 6e eee eereeee yy ‘sajyaososhwya °

“Waprgy “ce ee VW “pynosnf ‘Vy

“wmaprgy an tereeee our Stat "Y

(x 112419)

“SET “d “Be, “10S “A ‘ULOY, ‘pmory ef Oey Quip “qy1UIg (ee (Ooo SOODEOOHGG TTT EE 4010929 ‘T

‘19 ‘d “By ‘las [TT ‘Woy, ‘*puory *g “| “I, ‘SOPLBATL, Ef tererees oT SH INISNUMAVULOD “FT

“Waprgy “c seeneee SCD COROS ‘7.091010 'V

"weapray oe “SM “opajeg(nopy “7

“maprar : H “onenezLy “Vv

“UWaprgy “ee Bales Siero ‘DUDUWOSUY) 109 ‘Vv

“waprgy ce OO SOA ECC 9 ‘snwounf Vv

‘S91 (“yp ‘s7swoqyfnt)

‘d ‘ey ‘Ios ‘[ ‘WOT, “puory “Gg “| ‘SUBI, ‘SULLeyOTg fs teresererencgm gy ‘suaosagnd “Py

“900 90) *puory ‘00g “UUIT “suvay, ub rereereee oT SU DUOUWUWIAT, °F

"910 90) *puory “90g “yuGT ‘sug, |e BIPSUY ee ecccevecerens Se ‘s102929 ‘Vv

‘VIHAVUDOITAIA *VINLVd “SHUOLTIV

; “penuiju09—S TOTALS

4 40 anxe P |

OF OFOFOFOFOFOTOt OFOFO+TO+Ot+O+OF+

Ot

So fo

*SOxas

"+ (yprur “waza, *¢)

“+ “AMON ‘DU1wlazD “S *G

COCK) ‘nouadg [Soak

"Sa10ads

Mr. 8. S. Saunders on

24

éSnpuvioosss sntjod (stuyge tovpoootmrAyY 4M) srovuwog UN WesIoj oUTONN *ymaqaad MdTIOTINTOS

OTpodsUI TINTYWBOTIPS STOO] WApsIl wnewaewngy oom wnysrjog oot TUINpP ‘ yUNsep OUIUULO IqMog IyLne *g yfnsuy vmb (PFzT-d

“a9 *90)) anyerpuder osdres orou oe onbriuep ‘sa snyreyet soqumog pe snyoue,y ormoyoldmoey, ‘Mog ¥B UITO stAUIEN? y

(g) stuorzo0s sutny uy

‘ELI “d “BT ‘r08 “T “WOY, “puory ‘o0g “yum “Ay, | Tormeyy *g

BINSUT Pee ree ees eeeeeeseee “ec 2 "M4859 AA “ynojardhua y, “aT ‘g

"eS “TOF “FAG “FUG “SHIMH | BraTEqrH

4a BILSUy Seer eee er eeretenseaee ec P SRO OUR Hy (YG) “V1OY)0 AA A °Z

"EZ ‘d ‘TX “TOT, “puory ‘009 “uury ray ee ccceee eILSUy Pee eres eres arenas res % 20Uby P * Kq ay ‘svusoomueg “iT oT

“VIHdGVUOOITaIa “VINLVd “SHUOLTY “SOXxas * “SaIOdds

‘SIHND ‘SQHONA'TA “p snuex)

“TI JLUG “uO, “SLI Uy eeeeceee BISuy se eeeeeercee WAL ‘ny0ubrs oi ro} saee é

Taal “d ‘Bz, “10S “Til "MOT, ‘TOpy 6c SQUSAOCCOOII (23 ‘19 Barun, of ec) *ANXO P eee *‘puneg ‘aypjoqarg mn 'g

"gq ‘d “waprgy 6c BCORIRSOOOH SD nah 5| ‘0qqub ee 3 2 “= paneg ‘snawenb “2

es (‘snqtyaepoow@ad umd) 2 |punvg ‘sapoyngsnd zy +18,

“uLaprgy “ “punBg ‘40]0971S4a0 * J “IBA LP

‘nq ‘d ‘ez ‘oS *[ “WOT, *puory ‘00g “yum ay, |e Snatd gy | puneg ‘n,002.qnw sadosoug rae srreceres PUNBY “ONY "A °T

“VIHAVUSOITAIa “VIULVd “SHUOLTV “SOxus “Sa1odds

‘puneg “SOUHLOWIAH ‘g snuey

Stylopide. 25

Genus 1. Hauicrorpnacus, Curtis.

Curtis, ‘‘ British Entomology,” Fol. et Tab. 433, 1832.

(E descriptione Curtisianad anglice editi.)

Antenne lamellate, 7 articulate; articulis basalibus

2 robustioribus subquadratis; reliquis singulis [extimo

eacluso| ramum subovatum externe producentibus, usque

ad apicem longitudine sensim diminuentibus, extimo

penultimi ad basin inserto ; rami submembranacei punc-

tis pellucidis ornati.

Trophi (unico exemplo) invisi.

Elytra basi constricta, apice clavata.

Postscutellum valde productum, linguiforme, crassum,

superne basi profunde sulcatum.

Ale ample; costa inspissati; neurd postcostali abbre-

viata; vittai callosi apicali [sew newra prima insulata],

aliisque neuris majusculis quinque [cwm postcostali sex] ;

quarum secunda [insulata] sicut ramus a tertia [externo-

media| excisus; hac apicem versus subinterrupta, cui

radius brevis externe adjicitur: [reliquis neuris arece

intermediee inferioris © basi radiantibus, quarum ultima

analis].

Abdomen breve constrictum.

Coxe [trochanteres| antics elongate.

Femora subbrevia.

Tibi breves compresse.

Tarst triarticulati; antici duo articulo basali robusto ;

secundo elongato, tenui; tertio parvo, obovato; postici

duo articulis subzequalibus.

Species unica. Halictophagus Curtisti, Dale.

Curtis, ‘ Brit. Entomology ” (Dale), loc. cit.

Fuliginosus, subsericeus ; antennis pedibusque luteis ;

alis vix obscure tinctis, iridescentibus, neuris brunneis ;

tarsorum articulorum abdominisque apice ochraceo.

Habitat Angliam, cum Halictis eratis maribus, mensis

Augusti medio, circum carduos graminaque, prope mare

siti <* Lulworth Cove” (Com. Dorsetiz) dicto, rete ver-

rente semel lectus; alterius quoque pupa (scil. femina ?’)

ab Halicti corpore projecta simul detecta. (Dale, loc. cit.)

26 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Genus 2. Srytops, Kirby.

Kirby, Monogr. Apum. Angl. Tom. I. p. 257, Tab.

XIV. fig. 11, 1802; Tom. II. pp. 110-114. Sowerby, Br.

Misc. pars 9, Tom. I. pp. 93-5, Tab. XLV. Kirby,

Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Tom. XI. p. 112, 1813.

(Descriptio Kirbiana, 1813.)

Antenne bipartite, [sexarticulates,| ramis compressis,

superiori articulato ; stipite biarticulato; articulo primo

sequente longiori, clavato vel obconico; apice oblique

truncato ; secundo brevissimo, cylindrico, ramos duos

emittente: inferiori [articulo 3tio] paulo breviori, lan-

ceolato et fere auriformi, compresso, exarticulato, supra

concavo ; superiori compresso, triarticulato: articulo

primo [4to] longiori, sublineari, extrorsum paulo latiori ;

secundo [5to] brevi, tertio [6to] brevissimo, apice ro-

tundato, linearibus, tenuioribus.

Ocult pedunculati, hexagonis numerosis.

Mandibule apice paulo crassiores.

Palpi articulo primo magno, obconico, compresso ;

secundo semi-ovato, acuto ; subtus concayo.

Labrum, vel processus labri loco, porrectum, acutum.

Nasus obtusus, ante antennas prominens et labrum

obumbrans.

Scutellum [prescutum, Aud.] apice obtusum.

Interlumbium [scutum, Aud.] posticé valde convexum.

Postlumbium [scutellum, Aud.] fere verticale, corneum.

Pedes trochanteribus posticis elongatis ; tarsis [4-arti-

culatis] articulo extimo fisso.

[Alce, costé basi inspissata, seu cum neurd mediastind

quasi conjuncti ; postcostali abbreviata ; area costali ob-

scuri: neurd externo-mediad sinuata; secunda insulata de

margine externo ad illam basin versus vix attingente ;

prima insulatad (apicali) duplicata abbreviaté: area inter-

media inferior neurad subexterno-media gracili; aliisque

tribus rectis, basi robustioribus, subappropinquatis, ad

marginem exteriorem productis ; scilicit interno-media,

subinterno-media, et analis. |

Species 1. Stylops Melitte, Kirby.

Monogr. Apum Angl., loc. cit., Kirby & Spence, In-

trod. to Entomology, Tom. I. Tab. 2, fig. 1, 1828.

Stylopide. 27

Syn. S. Kirbii, Leach, Zoolog. Misc. Tom. III. p. 135,

Tab. 149, 1814. S. Haworthi, Steph., Syst. Catal. 1829.

(Kirbii descriptio, 1802.)

St. aterrima ; alis eorpore majoribus ; pedibus fuscis.

Long. corp. lin. 13.

Corpus aterrimum, obscurum. COaput antice obsolete

trilobum. (Palporum et Antennarum, vide anté descrip-

tiones emendatas.)

Ocult magni prominuli, conspicue reticulati, pedunculo

brevi, crasso, insidentes. Vertex planiusculus.

Truncus. EHlytra parva, sublinearia, thoracis lateribus

afixa. Ale magne, corpore longiores, plicate, lactez,

costa lineolaque submarginal, nigricantibus. [Pro-]

Scutellum [postscutellum, Aud.] porrectum, elongatum,

calceiforme, abdomen obtegens ; processu corneo utrin-

que munitum. Pedes compressi picei. Abdomen, sub

scutelli tegmine delitescens, carnosum, ano truncato,

subemarginato.

Larva [sc. foemina]. Corpus subcylindricum, molle, al-

bidum, in abdomine Melittw capite exserto corneo, cor-

dato, planiusculo, subrufo, postice nigro; subtus postice

concavo.

In Mus. Brit. Oxon. et aliis.

Habitat Huropam; typus in Melitté (Andrena Fabr.)

nigro-cened, K., incola. Species aliz tamen putative,

Sive ob nuperrimam metamorphosin seu vetustatis vel

ambiguitatis causa, tantum dubiz resultant, ut Dom.

Smithi hypothesis Stylopes indigenas adhuc descriptas

unicam constituere speciem (s) verisimillima videtur.

Nihilominus quales ab altoribus diversis oriunde,

quamvis species equivoce sint, cum nominibus distinctis

indicativis haud inutile conservari puto.

Species 2. Stylops Dalii, Curtis.

Curtis, “ Brit. Entomology,” Tom. III. Fol. et Tab.

226, 1828.

(s) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. IV. p. 118.

28 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

(EH descriptione Curtisianad anglicé edita.)

Fuliginosa, scutelli basi, abdominisque lateribus ochra-

ceis; alis postice emarginatis, angulo anali angustiori-

bus, lacteis, iridescentibus; costa, neurarum basi, elytris,

pedibusque fuscis.

In Mus. Brit.

Habitat Anglam, ex Andrenis labiali, K., et barbilabri,

K.a Domo. Daleo mense Maio dempta. Alia quoque sole

fulgente volans capta.

Species 3. Stylops Childrent, Gray.

Griffith, Cuv. Regn. Anim. Tom. XV. Tab. 59 (Insecta

Tom. II. p. 683 bis, 1832). Smith, Trans. Ent. Soc.

Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. IV. Tab. XXIV. fig. D.

Fuliginosa, antennis palpisque piceis ; abdomine luteo-

piceo; pedibus rufescentibus ; alis pallide fuscis, irides-

centibus, margine antico obscuriore.

Observatio. Ab aliis differt articulo basali apice rotun-

dato, quartoque (seu rami secundi articulo basali) valde

incrassato.

In Mus. Brit. typus.

Habitat Novam Scotiam; altore verisimiliter Andrena

victima Smithii, cujus tria exempla ejusdem patrie ita

molestata annotantur (¢); mecnon Andrena placida

Smithii, cujus exemplum, Stylope feminina aggressum,

simul in rete cum mare emancipato, a Dom. Packardo

die ultimad Aprilis America septentrionali captum (wu).

Species 4, Stylops Spencii, Pickering.

Trans. Ent. Soc, Lond., ser. la, Tom. I. p. 163, Tab.

XVII. fig. 1-14, 1835. Westwood, Introd. Tom. I.

Tab. I. fig. 6.

Ab alis differt magnitudine majore; alis obscuris,

neuris nigris; antennarum articulo basali interne ultra

secundi basin oblique valde producto; alis antice acumi-

natis, latissimis, postice rotundatis ; ano rufo-piceo.

(é) Smith in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. V. p. 129.

(u) A. 8. Packard, M. D. “Guide to the study of Insects,” p. 483.

Saleme (Com. Massachusetts) Americe, 1870,

Stylopide. 29

Habitat Angliam, cum Andrené tibiali, K. die Christi

natali in latebra arenarid situ Chiswick, prope Londinum,

a Domo. Pickering fodiendo, mas alatus in pupario altore

detectus.

Species 5. Stylops aterrima, Newport.

Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Tom. XX. p. 340, Tab. XIV.

fig. 33, 1847.

Syn. S. Trimmerana (Melitic ?) Smith, Trans. Ent.

Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. IV. p. 118, Tab. XXIV. fig. 6.

S. Melitice simillima, sed capitis margine occipitali pro-

funde exciso; antennis, capite, thorace, (alis?) pedibus,

abdomineque aterrimis.

Habitat Angliam, cum Andrend Trimmerana, K., men-

sibus Aprilis et Maii imagines declaratee.

Genus 3. Hytecrurvs, Saund.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. I. p. 57.

Caput magnum transversum. Oculi ingentes. Antenne

5-articulatee ; articulo basali brevi; secundo parvo truncato ;

tertio longissimo, spatulato, tota fere latitudine subzequali,

quartumque basin versus latere externo ferente; hoc

parvo annuloso; extimo (5to) tertio simillimo et in

illum recumbente. Palpi parvi, biarticulati; articulo

basali crassiore, apice obliquo; apicali graciliore, setoso,

compresso, externe recurvo. Mandibulce elongatz, com-

presse, ensiformes. Thorax antice constrictus, disco

gibboso, capitilatitudine subzequali; postscutello maximo,

elongato-triangulari, margine antico sinuato, lateribus

rectis, angulo postico subacuto porrecto. Hlytra parva,

apice valde dilatata, crassiora, subconcava. Ale cost

dimidio basali inspissato (seu potius costé cum neura

mediastina, quasi conjuncta) ; postcostali ultra medium

alee evanescente, cum eaterno-media prope basin furcata ;

hac subrecta, deflexé, ad marginem exteriorem vix at-

tingente; prope apicem alz neura incrassata duplex

subabbreviata (prima insulata) exstat ; secunda insulata

duplea, tenuissima, elongata, de margine externo sinuate

producta, retro ad neuram externo-mediam proxime ex-

tendit: area intermedia inferior neuris rectis, deflexis;

quarum prima (subexterno-media) gracilis, ad marginem

exteriorem attingens; dus subapproximate (interno-

30 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

media et subinterno-media) margini interno propiores,

basi robustiores ; alia quoque (analis) gracilis. Abdomen

constrictum. Pedes longitudine mediocres, posteriorum

tibis apice dilatatis, compressis, genubus constrictis;

tarsi 4-articulati, articulo apicali integro. Mas.

Femina, cephalothoracis aditu apicali cum processu

palpiformi, minimo, utrinque munito (a).

Puparium, operculo oculorum situ pellucido, levigato.

Species 1. Hylecthrus rubi, Saund.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. I. p. 17, Tab.

VIII. fig. 1, a-k, mas; fig. 2, a-i, foemina ; fig. 3, larva

primitiva; ibid, ser. 2a, Tom. I. Tab. XVI. figs. 2-10,

mas ; figs. 11-17, foemina.

Niger, gibbosus, pedibus luteis; alis lacteis, neuris

saturate piceis.

Varietas. (H. pustulatus, mihi.) Abdominis seg-

mento singulo (apicali excluso) maculis binis luteis

rotundis, superficie dorsali ventralique (cunctis viginti

octo), signato.

Long. corp. $-% lin.

Expans. alar. fere 14 lin.

Fcemine nuper declaratee cephalothorace pallido, lineola

marginali tenuissima nigricante ; vitta utrinque, maculis

duabus parvis transversis prope basin, angulisque pos-

ticis brunneis: parturientes disco convexiore fere omnino

flavescente, vitta media longitudinali dilutiore.

In Mus. Brit. et nostro.

Habitat Epirum cum Prosope rubicola, rubis exsiccatis ;

a mense Junio ineunte usque ad medium ejusdem mensis,

mares declarati; foemine parturientes sepe Junio ex-

eunte super porris floriferis cum altoribus lecte.

Species 2. Hylecthrus quercis, Saund.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. I. p. 18; idem,

Tom. 1. Tab. XVii tie le;

(c) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. I. Tab. VIII. fig. 2, a, b, ¢, d;

idem, Tom. II. Tab. XVI. figs. 15,16, 17, 20.

Stylopide. 31

A. precedente differt magnitudine duplo majore, alis

parum obscurioribus, neurisque magis nigricantibus.

Mas.

In Mus. nostro.

Habitat Epirum, cum Prosope gibba, in quercis

gallis primo vere a Cynipibus relictis seepe eedificante ;

mense Maio ineunte mares declarati; Junio ineunte fce-

mine parturientes super hippomarathro florifero cum

altoribus lectze.

Species 3. Hylecthrus Sieboldit, Saund.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. II. p. 142, Tab.

XVI. figs. 19, 20, femina.

Foemina tantum, marisque exuvie adhuc vise; cepha-

lothorace vitta longitudinali, apice dilatata, fulva; fas-

ciaque transversa basali, medio interrupta, picea.

In Mus. nostro.

Habitat Epirum cum Prosope variegata, Fabr., nun-

quam in rubis vel gallis edificante ; foemine parturientes

cum altoribus in sabuletis juxta mentham sylvestrem

mense Junio ineunte reperte.

Genus 4. Ernencuus, Curtis.

‘‘ British Entomology,” Fol. et Tab. 385, 1831.

Antenne. elongate, tenues, 5-articulate, articulo tertio

in ramum elongatum linearem, flecuosum, producto ; reliquis

duobus linearibus elongatis, ramum secundum constituenti-

bus.

(E descriptione Curtisiand anglicé edita.)

Antenne in acetabulo frontis utrinque posite, tenues,

pubescentes, scabrosz, thorace longiores, ramis duobus

elongatis, compressis; 5-articulate ; articulis la et 2a

brevibus, cyathiformibus ; 3o lateraliter producto, elon-

gato, lanceolato; 40 tenui, sequentis longitudine dimidio

minore ; 5o tertii ultra apicem producto.

Mazille [mandibule] elongate, tenues, lanceolate,

cornee.

Caput breve, antice lateribusque lobatum.

32 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Ocult [subsessiles] remoti, globosi hexagonis fere

viginti.

Prothorax brevis.

Mesothorax longior ; elytris clavatis, basi tenuibus,

elongatis.

Metathoraz magnus, oblongus, diagonaliter quadri-

partitus.

Postscutellum elongo-ovatum .

Ale ample; costa inspissaté; neuris nonnullis im-

perfectis instructis, [scilicet postcostali robusta; ex-

terno-media abbreviaté; neura insulata discoidali callosa,

nec margini exteriori propinquaé neque ad neuram

externo-mediam productaé; neura insulata apicali (nisi

discum luce penetrante) inconspicua vel obsoleta; neura

subexterno-media item vix distinguenda; aliisque neuris

tribus posticis e basi radiantibus,| quarum ultima elon-

gata ad marginem internum parallela (?).

Abdomen tenue, incurvum.

Pedes elongati, incurvi; postici remoti.

Coxe [trochanteres] anticze et intermediz longissime ;

postices breves.

Femora tibiceeque longitudine fere cozquales; harum

anteriores 4 elongate, tenus:, incurvee ; postice breves,

apice dilatatee.

Tarsi bi-articulati, antici 2 tenuiores; articulo basali

subtus lobato, supra concavo ad secundum recipiendum ;

hoc subclavato.

Species 1. Hlenchus tenuicornis, Kar,

Syn. Stylops tenuicornis, Kirb.

Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Tom. XI. p. 238, 1811.

(Descriptio Kirbiana ab exemplo mutilato.)

Aterrimus, oculis subsessilibus, antennis tenuioribus

piceis, ramis linearibus ; alis nigricantibus.

Long. corp. 4 lin. circiter.

In Mus. Brit.

Habitat Angliam: imprimis a Domo. Sowerby Julio

ineunte (1811) in Aranee tela lectus (y) ; postea a Domo.

(y) Kirby, loc. cit.

Stylopide. 30

Stephens prope Hertfordiam, estate fortuite gramina

verrente (z).

Altores adhuc ignoti.

Species 2. Hlenchus Walkeri, Curtis, op. cit.

(An species distincta ?)

E descriptione Curtisiand anglice edita.

Obscure luteus, oculis nigris, lucentibus ; alis pallide

fuscis, iridescentibus ; neuris obscuris, pedibus antennisque

pubescentibus.

Habitat Angliam et Hiberniam.

Altores ignoti.

In Anglid a Dom. Walker graminibus situ Southgate,

die 24 Junii captus (a): a Domo. Dale quoque inter flores

triticumque rete verrente, situ Glanvilles Wootton (Com.

Dorsetiz) die 11 Junii (>) ; in Hibernia prope Belfast

a Domo. Haliday mensibus Junio Julioque (c) ; a Domo.

Templeton quoque eodem fere situ mense Augusto

ineunte, in rete inventus quo prius Bombi nidus positus

fuerat (d).

Species 3. Hlenchus Templetonii, Westw.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 1, Tom. I. p. 173, Tab.

XVII. fig. 15.

(Descriptio Westwoodiana.)

Minimus ; fuscus, thorace valde globoso, oculis magnis

nigris, segmentis abdominalibus constrictis, antennarum

articulo 5to subclavato et in medio subangustato, articu-

lum referente ; elytris clavatis versus apicem nigrican-

tibus; alis latissimis pallidis fuscentibus, nervis obscu-

rioribus; tarsis ut in Hl. Walkeri, Curt. formatis; pedibus

antennisque pube tenuissima indutis.

(2) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., Tom. I. (Acta) p. Ixv.

(a) Curtis, loc. cit.

(b) Curtis, loc. cit.

(c) Curtis, loc. cit.

(d) Curtis, loc. cit.; Westwood, Introd. Tom. I. p. 304, Trans. Ent.

Soc. Lond., ser. la, Tom. I. p. 173.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—PART I. (APRIL.) D

34 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Long. corp. 2 lin.; expans., alarum fere lin, 1.

In Mus. Oxoniz, olim Prof. Westwoodii.

Habitat Insulam S. Mauricii; mense Augusto grami-

nibus nemorum sub tegmine umbrantium, plurimi capti.

Altores ignoti (vide ante p. 24, note a).

Sub-fam. 2. MYRMECOLACIDES.

(Character essentialis.)

Formicidarum, Linn. incole.

Adhuc Genus unum, species unica.

Genus 5. Myrmecotax, Westwood.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. V. p. 418, Tab.

I. fig, 1-18 ; Idem, ser. 3a, Tom. I. (Acta) p. 23.

(i Westwoodui descriptione anglice edita.)

Oculi ingentes, hexagonis paucis magnis, interstitiis

conice elevatis.

Caput columnis oculiferis subovatis conspicuis utrinque

munitum.

Antenne pseudo-Hlenchomorphe, ramis duobus elon-

gatis valde inezequalibus; stipite biarticulato; articulo

basali brevi, secundo minori; tertio in tenuem ramum

inferiorem lateraliter producto ; quarto minimo vel am-

biguo, e basi preecedentis emergente ; reliquis ramum

superiorem triarticulatum constituentibus, articulis sub-

elongatis apice dilatatis, curvatis.

Mandibule longe, tenues, incurve, apice acute.

Palpi articulo primo minimo; secundo elongato, com-

presso, externe curvato.

Prothorae brevis annularis; mesothoraw consimilis,

elytra clavata halteriformia ferens. ;

[ Ale, neura mediastind cum costa quasi contigud; post-

costali robusta ; eaterno-media tenui; neurd prima insu-

lata (apicali) ambigua, vel potius, ut videtur, cum secundd

insulatd (discoidali) medio in una robusta, apice utrinque

recurya, conjuncta. Arez intermediz inferioris neuris

omnibus normalibus quatuor. |

Pedes brevissimi.

Tarsi articulis quatuor.

Siylopidee. 35

Species 1. Myrmecolaw Nietneri, Westw.

Magnitudine inter Stylopes et Hlenchum tenuicornem

intermedia ; alarum neuris robustis atris.

In Mus. Oxoniz, olim Prof. Westwoodii.

Habitat Insulam Taprobanen, e formica operaria mon-

tana mense Aprili exeunte emergens lectus. He formic

magnitudine mediocres, saturate piceze, cum paucis soda-

libus sub tegmine petrorum vel lignorum ee cies

nidificant ; quarum foeminarum expansio alarum 2 uncie.

Sub-fam. 3. XENIDES.

(Character essentialis.)

Vespidarum socialium incole.

Stylopide hujus subfamiliz ob altorum transforma-

tiones consociatas, rapidam educationem perficiunt, quia

e larvis nutritoriis ejusdem anni imagines declarantur.

Ita per tot menses ab anno precedente usque ad zstatem

ineuntem sequentem, cum fceminis hibernantibus proles

retardatur ; postea triginta fere dierum spatio, (sicut

Polistium Vesparumque transformationes exigunt (e),

larvee interne, vermiformes (exuvlis primitivis olim de-

jectis), inter abdominis segmenta, capite protruso, in

pupas mutantur.

Hee larvee primitive ad illas Polistium, ab ovo in cel-

lulis nuperrime exclusas, ore caudaque quocunque situ

fortiter adherentes, mox introitum operantes, septimo

vel octavo die immobiliter, capite recumbente, brevispatio

constrict restant; tunc gradatim tegumento dejecto in

larvas albas apodas secundarias convertuntur (jf).

Annotatio. Ex hac subfamilia et sequente, ob pauci-

tatem specierum quarum characteres adhuc cognoscuntur,

plurimi alumni occultantur quos sub ipso typo generico

inter se concordare haud recte assumendum est. Hac causa,

dum imprimis secundum altorum affinitates distribuuntur,

quibus consociationes reciproce indicuntur et conser-

vantur, tenebras penetrare novaque discrimina cernere,

aliis indagatoribus in futuro cure sit.

(e) Ab ovo usque ad pupam dies 20-21. Pupz 8-9. (Reaumurius de

Poliste Gallico, Tom. VI. Mem. 6. p. 191.) ‘* Ab ovo posito ad larve

exclusionem dierum numerus incertus. Temperie moderata dies octo aut

novem sufficiunt. Anno 1811, die 20 Maii, in cellulis primum octo larve

prodiere. Die 6 Junii in puppam ibant.” (Vespx Gallice Historia,

Polistes, Latr., Auctore Stephano Disderi in Mem. R. Acad. Taurini, Tom.

XXII. 1816.)

(f) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. IT. p. 127

ic]

bo}

Mr. S. 8S. Saunders on

36

-

*AIXX] ‘d ‘oorg {BT ‘108

‘T ‘WO, :puoy ‘00g Yu ‘suBIy, Ut ‘Iezoy UBAI*

‘SIT ‘06 ‘dd ‘Tx ‘moy, “puory ‘oog -uury ‘ay, ‘Aqary

“waprgy

TYTUTG “wMog ‘suyy Uy |-

“moaproyr

‘nudns 19n ‘TyITAg

“nidns 19n ‘ouLO

% ‘WOXO ‘SN UT

‘TILT “CITA “MOY, “puory ‘00g “[ooz “Ay, ‘oulioH]

‘wapige “qyTOLg

‘IST “d “eg “es “A “MOT, “puory *g “gy “AL, ‘YyTUIg

“‘padns yn “puory *oog ‘marry ‘suBAy,

"909 *90) ‘OULINBY, “Y “YT “WET

‘POLI ‘FIT “d “TI “wor, ‘ddy “yueyy ‘snayq “vuneg |-

"S181 ‘QI “d ‘IX ‘Woy, “puory ‘o0g ‘uury “zy,

“VIHdAVUDOITAIA

BIUBULIOL) tise ie oieme stot) T ‘sawobyna Hi

“(é) 290 (-Aqary, ‘40109u09)

Poem ewer eeseeesese uury ‘pdsa4

(73 ee eer eereseene “QB ‘snasiLb ‘¢

“BOLIFY |**°**"1004D od ‘sa uuadapid ‘E

(qeq ‘snaounl )

setae sTpodiry, js ssneg ‘wazsnbouojag

(‘AITO 997.108)

“nee QTTTSBIG, [oresc seme reeee ‘ssneg “‘pighjog

-STTRITALIO (‘qeq ‘nourhnisaf)

BIPUy se eeeeeceeeees “SSnBg ‘DLMMIT

Sess iOTUG IT GG) yl esses ose" . ‘d

6c EA OCDOSOOCR IIT “pubr4s ol

** SITBJUOLIO

BIPUy ee ececcee "ae T ‘sna.1qa “d

eeeeee BITISVI seeccvccces ssneg ‘surqnqsur oT,

6 BOREOOP ESOT CG | ‘siupo Law ‘d

“** STPBOIOg

BolIouly |*"*"" “qed Uo ci

(‘wury ‘snoyjop)

eeccee edomy ee cceccncccvces “IpOryT *saqst]0g

“VIULVd “SHUOLTY

‘Issoy ‘SONAX “9 snuey

‘VOILGONAS VINGVL WOCINGX

3 cagtersnt)

"Anxe P eteeeeeeg

5 JO ‘ANXO P Zleeeeeee me

$ seeeeeeg on. he

ae pes ees vee

=o “ENT -

(o) eeeeeee é

ro a Seseesee é

5 JO*ANKO P Jeveeeeeee j

*ANXO P ececccece é

P se eeeeaee Aqary “ayoog 'Y 7

GOOLOO vemos leroror counine K ‘SeIOLB A

se eeeeceesesceseeslensy ISSO] “unwodsea "y “akg

$ P eereecene Aqary “asso > 4 T

“‘saxas “sa10ads

Stylopide. 37

* Vide p. 36.

[ Tot decursis annis nisi e Polistibus duobus gallico et fuscato jam-

dudum indicatis, Xenwm marem ex aliis Vespidis educantibus nusquam

invenisse, mirabile dictu. Nunc tamen ab alio Poliste nova Xeni species

adjicitur, dum reliquarum Vespidarum socialium alumni omnino occul-

tantur.]

Genus 6. Xenos, Rossi.

Rossi, Faun. Etrus, Mant. App. p. 114, 1794. Karby,

Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Tom. XI. p. 113, 1813.

(Descriptio Kirbiana.)

Mandibule, subflexuosz, medio crassiores, acute.

Palpi articulo primo compresso flexuoso; secundo

ovato acuto.

Antenne bipartite [4 articulate], ramis semiteretibus,

exarticulatis, symmetricis; stipite biarticulato; (g) arti-

culis brevissimis ; primo sequente paulo longiori, fere

obconico, apice oblique truncato; ultimo [2do] ramos

duos [art. 3 et 4] semiteretes, superficie interiori plano,

exteriori convexo, a basi ad apicem magnitudine sensim

decrescentes, symmetricos, emittente.

Oculi hexagonis paucis, vix ultra 50; septis crassis

elevatis.

Scutellum [preescutum, Aud.| apice subemarginatum.

Postlumbium [seutellum, Aud.| declive membrana-

ceum.

Femoralia supra anticé concava.

Pedes coxis anticis brevissimis, reniformibus, trochan-

teribus posticis coxis vix longioribus ; femoribus posticis

intus obtusangulis; tarsis [quadri-articulatis] articulo

extimo integro.

Abdomen corneum, proscutello [postscutello, Aud.] lon-

gius, vix retractile, segmentis octo: podice minuto

lineari adunco supra terminatum, subtus stylo longius-

culo lineari reflexo; basi dilatato; apice, ut videtur,

fisso(?), ano carnoso.

[ Ale costa cum neurd mediastina proximis ; postcostali

valde abbreviaté; ared costali nebulosd, latere mterno

(g) Stipite triarticulato secundum Kirbium, quia articulum distinctum

pro basi tertii, ut videtur, existimavit. (loc. cit., pp. 114, 121, Tab. IX.

fig. 10b).

38 Mr. S. 8. Saunders on

apicem versus vix circumcincté; newrd externo-media

sinuata, integra, ad marginem exteriorem fere attingente :

area intermedia superior neuris insulatis simplicibus elon-

gatis duabus, de margine exteriore ultra medium alz

retro productis, apicali paulum breviore, discoidali ad

neuram externo-mediam basi plus minusve appropin-

quante: area intermedia inferior neura tenuissima recta

(subeaterno-medid) imprimis munita, aliisque tribus magis

conspicuis, rectis, subappropinquatis, basi inspissatis, ad

marginem exteriorem productis ; quarum ultima analis. |

Puparium, oculorum operculis fenestratis; fenestrulis

hexagonis. (Kirby, /. ¢., p. 115, Tab. VIII. fig. 5a,

7 aa.)

Species 1. Xenos Rossii, Kirb.

Syn. X. vesparum, Rossi. (h)

Rossi, Fauna Htrus. loc. cit., Tab. VII. fig. B. Jurine,

Mem. R. Acad. Sc. Taurini, Tom. XXIII. p. 50, Tab.

LX. 1818... Idem, Isis, (18352, Tab, XW viele

Siebold, Wiegm. Archiv. Berolini, 1843; Tab. VII.

(Larva, pupa, femina.) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2,

Tom. Il. Tab. XV. fig. 1-8; Tab. XV1. fig. 1.

(Descriptio Rossiana.)

Totus ater, fuliginosus. Caput parvum. Oculi valde

prominuli, spheerici, manifeste compositi. Labiuwm breve,

medio setigerum. Palpi duo filiformes longiusculi, arti-

culis duobus inequalibus, primo brevi rotundo, altero

elongato, compresso. Antenne breves, vix capite longi-

ores, duplici ramo instructe, ramis equalibus, deflexis,

compressis, quasi ensiformibus. Thorax lobo antico in

collum veluti protractus, et singulariter utrinque ad basin

appendiculatus, membranula, seu pedunculo instar halte-

rum porrecto, cochleariformi [elytris|; in medio latior,

convexus, inequalis, posticeque admodum elongatus.

Abdomen fere cylindricum, neque petiolatum neque acu-

leatum. Femora tibiceque posticee depress et breviores.

Tarsi [articulis] quatuor, fusci, subtus albidi.

(h) Nominis antici mutationem justificat Kirbius, ob hujus et aliarum

specierum ejusdem generis originem communem. (Trans. Linn. Soe., loc.

cit., p. 116.)

Stylopide. 39

Ale albz, longitudine abdominis.

_Varietas. (X. Jurinei, mihi.) Abdominis segmentis

singulis (basali et apicali? exclusis) maculas binas luteas

superne exhibentibus. (Jurine, ubi supra.)

Habitat Europam ; larva in Poliste gallico alita.

Species 2. Xenos Pechkii, Kirb.

Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., loc. ¢it., Tab. 8, 9.

(Descriptio Kirbiana.)

Nigro-fuscus ; antennis ramis semiteretibus dilutiori-

bus, albo-punctatis, ano pallido, pedibus luridis; tarsis

fuscis.

Corpus nigro-fuscum, ex pube brevissima et nisi sub

lente forti omnino inconspicué opacum et quasi velu-

tinum.

Caput inter antennas longitudinaliter elevatum et fere

carinatum. Palpi articulo primo secundo longiori. An-

tennee capite longiores, ramis majis dilute fuscis, subdia-

phanis, punctis minutissimis albis.

Truncus. Thorax postice in medio obtusangulus.

Scutellum [prescutum, Aud.] longitudinaliter et late

canaliculatum. Postlumbium pallidum. Ale cinereo-

albidee ; margine crassiori, nervisque nigris. Pedes ci-

nerei, vel potius luridi, tarsis nigricantibus.

Abdomen reliquo corpore magis obscurum ; ano pallide

rufescente.

Long. corp. 14 lin.

Habitat. Larva in Poliste fuscato, Fabr., America

septentrionalis.

Species 3. Xenos :

In Mus. Oxoniz, a Prof. Westwoodio cito describendus.

(Vide Xenidum, Tab. Synopt. Annot., p. 36).

40 Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Sub-fam. 4. PSHUDOXENIDES.

(Character essentialis.)

Vespidarum solitarium et Hymenopterorum Fossorium

incolee.

A preecedentibus maxime dissidentes Pseudoxenides

apud altorum larvas in cellulis clausis diu perstant, an-

noque sequente maribus fcoeminisque declaratis, larvee

primitive pariuntur, incunabulisque novis altorum nidifi-

cantium transferuntur.

Quamvis in seipsis Fossores a Vespidis solitariis per-

spicue discrepant, moribus quoad tempus in quo alteru-

trorum proles de anno in annum educantur et declarantur

plus minusve concordant.

Alumnorum tamen plurimi, ut a reliquiis detectis

constat, hodie occultantur. Quare specierum adhuc

cognitarum characterum integrorum expositione, ab aliis

scriptoribus per specificos sepe definitorum (compara-

tionis in presenti unicus modus facilis et opportunus),

mihi discriminare visum est. De aliis tamen per orbem

dispersis, altorum omnino divergentium, ut ab marium

exuviis, foeminarumve tegumentis derelictis, in tabula

‘sequente exhibetur, nondum opinari datum est.

4]

Stylopide.

(-jduaag, ‘oy2dv00unn)

‘Ig ‘d ‘TIT ‘Woy, “Bl “108 “puory "09 “Jum ‘SUBIy, "°°" BIIsuag |-“ters weer tee GET ‘woydg 2 -{du10 J, “vypoomysa 44 ese

‘CLL ‘d “BEST seer sores eroeeseee IYO] ‘30

‘SLIT ‘ZUR “Posey YEN "p “YES “N * plogarg |*** ermeurIe_) | -sadwwo snasipy 4o “ULopT 5 2 ‘qolg ‘unwoproydg "x “ug

‘TIA ‘UO, Bz *10S “LE81 “JBN ‘Og “uuy + MMoyNy pewseus BT TG) eee Tat “pso]nqns npydoumy & picieisis Ssielee ele OOGUM wal ‘e

"O1}SOU “SN UT |°"°°** BIAOTOD [oes "ry ‘sadauads auodidy £ ¢ soreeoes Tr fonavshaL0O “J °%

4810 iF ‘SN7D]NILAQNILG “IBA

‘mg ‘snurthasad (nu0'T)

*o14SOul “Sn Ur sees er ko109 seerereeee B4SOD ‘snuwaquag *6) 2 seeeeeeeee og Sty “MOQuy fea |

*‘VIHAVUDOLTAIa *VIULVE *SHUOLIV *‘SAXaS *SHIOMdS

‘SONHXVUVd ‘8 sMuef)

"S1-6 “8E AX “A2L (yonqg ‘sedeaw))

‘LPI “d rif “THOT, ‘eg "109 “puory 009 “VU *SUBLY, se seeeee snatd iy seceeeee OBOIOOO TG io.) ‘auochda 2 rere NTN BG ‘nbryy FT; g

"LOST *qOpurtA “my ‘douowA Fy *[BYBO IOUYOALY] see erase eenesrese “yeyog (é) ‘sriypua 0 ‘uhg

‘IPL ‘d I] “Moy, ‘vz ‘108 “puory ‘oog “quay ‘suBry, |**"* BIADIOD

40 snd y POCSOOLOLS vyenats| ‘snpuayfap ‘0 j 2 “ “puneg ‘uephey 239 Or

OST “d Ti “TOT, ‘10g "dsoA emMssneg seco eee reeneesens DOO IOO CHOY fh ‘oyon0 ndsa 4,

‘QIT ‘d ‘ddy ‘yuvyy ‘sng vuneg ‘Issoy fst soy Snynvsnf-g vdsag -ukg

(ary ‘wnzorod)

*OIJSOU “SN UT it" eiko10pH ee ewerterreces "IBY ‘snuauhpo 2 sevens og *TT “umn yoy rec

*VIHAVADOITAIT *VIULV "SUUOLIV ‘SOXaS *SH1NGdS

‘“SONHXOCGNWSd “2 snueH

‘VOILGONAS VINGVL WOCINGXOdNUSsd

Mr. S. 8. Saunders on

42

‘MyTSqNs Bsso[sTTIsg ourM0U

8 srprdsoq Ur myst f4my umyertdosdde (pT { -d -Z) -osopy RN ‘00g Taq Ur sntid sntex tn10103do009 PB QFRT UI OoALop

“NYY omoleg B WoULe, UsutoU 9OF{ “*4INF TANyvoTpep gegy ouuL (Fd *[ ‘woy,) erydvasouozY yIserse UNTAeyTOSs TMIepIdse, UT

OMMSSNBG “ALO B vssojbowarg uetdoU no ‘gy d “‘[ ‘Moy, ‘vg ‘os “puorTy ‘00g “yuR ‘suUBAy, UL ‘gq ONOTJOOg assophrydvy Og x

‘081

‘d ‘A ‘WO, ‘vg ‘10s “puory ‘90g “yu “47, me phaeace!

"gL d ‘T “Woy, ‘vg tos“ puory ‘oog yur “ay, ‘qyTUTG

‘MOXO “SN UT

‘OST d*A “Woy, ‘Bz tos “puory 00g “yu “xy, “qyTUTg

‘O1{SOU “Sn UT

“HYTUAg “wo ‘snyy Uy

“Traxxxy *d

(ByoV) A “WOT, ‘ez ‘10s “puory ‘00g “qug “ay, ‘yyTUIG

*VIHAVuUdOrTdIa

(esq)

seers BTTISRAEG’

sseet eee BUTT

seeeeeee BRDIN

eeeeeees BIDUT

secceees snard yy

cc

**--eITBIISNY

*VIULVd

vdnd

440 ‘anxa P

“‘yotmurE P

5

“ANxO P

*ILONDI

INWO'TV

sisenr 3 GOOCOCGOCLOLOSO Hen p ‘snwauhipo

TOG Sungourbuoumorngys |r ssneg ‘unyouhyy

seeeeereoes TSSONT ‘suumlofuuod oy

Cece ese esccccce “qe ‘ny0}01900 eevesveses COCO OL | ‘souaunig

“se puneg ‘saprouauhipg frit y TOL ‘vssop buys

LLECOOB Oh ilityts| £40109} =

etree ee recess yonyg ‘suardiap ee eeeeeeresces youyg ‘pibping

“Sa10ads *SONDD

“HOUOLIV

a Ne ee a re ee a. a

‘eyBonpo STIIB{T[OS StTprdseq Y “TL

ee oe ee Ee Sen ee SS

‘WLTINOONO SHIOddS WOACINGXOdnAUSsd

43

Stylopide.

“maprgy

THUG “Mog ‘suy_ Uy

‘est “d ‘prar

“UWbapror

“Wap Loy

“‘pidns rn “Gy

“wWapray

*(ByooT “JONG qu) “JIG ‘sny_ Uy

“TIPPS “UO “Sn, UT

*TISTOPUNE “MA “AA “SUIT Ul

“ubapray

“pdms 2qn ‘qyTUTg

‘MOXY ‘SN UT

“WHE “Say, UT

“uapray

“Mapray

‘631

‘dq ‘Woy, ‘vg ‘103 “puory ‘oog “yuMT “ay, ‘qyTUIg

*VIHdVU901 Tala

eeeeeee seqo[9p)

sereeeees OTD,

eectee SoqeaTaD

““-“TeySUBYG

“ TLIY BTUSUT

eccceenee aTITO

se eeeeree erpuy

saeseese snard op

“*** STTBOIOY

BOLLOULy

seeeee BI9L004)

or i) BILISBIG

eeeeeneee BIpuy

eeeeee BIQUIBr)

“ TOnouUNy,

seeeeeee BI[TOTG

“VIULVd

5 yo ‘Anxe P

“ANXxO P

“ANXO P

Jo°ANxe P Z

“ILONDI

INWOA'TV

eeeeee “9 TOG ‘snqorospf-ovoyf ee eecneeceveese 66

see eeeeee “BIT 40 ‘snqnusn f bene Cane teeee Lt

boveavaouooor a Aiquads| ‘suapnujur ebb een eee nseens “ce

see eeeasionee Tru ‘svuofop See ny it)

eee eneeeeeroee it3

* SoeeeeeeeTATOG *s1s0r1Loqn)

tefestseveee cog ‘sasuayvyg

SL BGLOOGHOCEULIUCUG |g ‘suanwaf

sereeeees «378 7 "9 “090981970

settee eeeveg TT

BELO OOS ERY 123i) *s1y0qry

PROOOHE UAL LOOIOF Eh ABaTS ‘sadmnyf

PURGELCOOODCAS smarts ‘pynjoyed

seseeets 5( 3) 9] geet

stresseecaseons UATG ‘sadtlgn

sees “BIBT "4g ‘sachhaurbnusaf eee eceenses

sereeseee “BIB T 9G ‘sasuadwa

pena cheyiee cae ‘9091080104

“Sa10dds

ee cccveens JOCLOH aA f ‘snadopag

iy

Se cetcevecce “Tg ‘waydsn.n

Peer ease eseroeenes o

Heer ee ereereseaee te

PU QUIRES UE: ‘woaydg

“c

eee eseseee

sewer eeeroee “

“

eeeereeeeeee “

eececesece “qT ‘ppvydounupy

“SONGD

“WOUWOLTY

‘B}Bonpe snqiiosso,y strojdouomAéH qy °Z

AA Mr. S. S. Saunders on

Genus 7. PsEUDOXENOS.

(Characteres e P. Schaumii desumpti.)

Palpi articulo basali brevi, robusto, secundo elongato,

subcylindrico, hirto, deflexo.

Mandibule elongate, ensiformes.

Antenne 4-articulate; articulo basali brevi, apice

dilatato, angulo interno porrecto; secuwndo transversali,

minimo; tertio in ramum internum subrectum, compres-

sum, uni formem, apice subobtusum, producto; quarto

lamelliformi, simillimo, longitudine fere cozequali, ad basin

precedentis inserto, in illum recumbente, spatio libero

vix basi relicto.

Ale cost dimidio basali inspissato ; neurd postcostali

abbreviata ; ared costali lata nebulosa, ultra neuras pro-

ducté; neurad externo-media valde sinuata, ultra medium

ale tenuissima, ad marginem exteriorem vix attingente :

area intermedia superior neura prima insulata duplicata

abbreviata; secunda insulata elongata, valde sinuata,

simplice, de margine exteriori usque ad neuram externo-

medium basin versus fere attingente: area intermedia

inferior neuraé prima (subexterno-media) gracillima,

aliisque tribus simplicibus, basi inspissatis, ultra medium

tenuissimis; quarum ultima analis.

Pedes omnes elongati, graciles; trochanteres anteriores

4 femoribus fere cozquales ; postici 2 breviores; tibiz

tenues, elongate, apice vix dilatatze; tarsi nitidi, articulis

apice angulis prominulis, basi tenuissimis ; ; articulo primo

paulo longiore, reliquis longitudine diminuentibus, apicali

rotundato integro.

Puparium, operculo oculorum situ fenestrulis paucis

minutissimis instructo.

Species 1. Pseudowenos Schaumit, n. s.

Niger; antennis, palpis, elytris, pedibusque brunneis ;

abdomine flavescente, segmento singulo, basali excluso,

(septem) disco dorsali ventralique vitta transversali

abbreviaté brunned: processu anali piceo: alis hyalinis,

neuris piceis ; area costali opaca. Mas.

Long. corp. 13 lin.

Habitat Insulam Corcyram, mense Octobri ineunte in

pupario cum altore Odynero parietum, L. semel lectus ;

et Illustri nomini, nulli secundo, dicatus.

Stylopide. 45

Species 2. Pseudowenos Heyden, Saund.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 2a, Tom. II. p. 141, Tab.

XV. fig. 15-24.

Aterrimus; antennarum rami tuberculis minutis albis

dense bullati; alis hyalinis neuris piceis, pedibus luteis.

Mas.

Long. corp. 1 lin.

- Habitat Epirum et Insulam Corcyram, Odyneri deflendi

alumnus ; a Julio ineunte usque ad Octobris idus, mares

in pupariis cum altoribus lecti; foemine parturientes

quoque diebus Julii decimo tertio, Augnsti nono, et

Octobris undecimo, cum eddem Odyneri spicie prehensz.

Species 38. Pseudoxenos Klugii, Saund.

Ibid., p. 142, Tab. XV. figs. 9-15.

Preecedente paulo major; antennis subtilioribus, pedi-

bus pallidis.

Habitat. Epirum, cum Odynero levipede, Shuck. (7),

in rubis exsiccatis, cellulas limosas construente, ex qui-

bus imagines, cum alumnorum pupariis expositis, Maio

mense exeunte evadunt.

Genus 8. PaRAXENOS.

Palpi articulo basali crasso, arcuato ; secundo cylindrico,

hirto, deflexo.

Mandibule basi latiores, interne fortiter emarginatz.

Antenne 4-articulate; articulo primo brevi, apice

dilatato, angulo interno prominulo, tertii cubitum versus

porrecto: secundo minimo, subcuneiformi, lateribus an-

gulatis: tertio in ramum internum producto, basi externé

dilatatum ad quartum recipiendum, deinde subito rectan-

gulariter reflexo, reliquo compresso, distorto, basi tumido,

apice subtiliore, obtuso: quarto e basi preecedentis

retrorsum emergente, in illum inflexo, spatio libero in-

termedio basi relicto, similiter compresso, basi dilatato,

apice subobtuso, longitudine preecedentem plus minusve

excedente.

(i) O. rubicola, Dufour et Perris, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., Tom. IX. p. 23,

1840.

46 Mr. S. 8. Saunders on

Alce costes dimidio basali cum neuré mediastina proximo

sed distincto; postcostali remota subabbreviata; area

costali laté nebulosd, ultra neuras producta; neura

externo-media sinuata, dimidio apicali duplicata, tenuis-

sima: area intermedia superior neuris insulatis binis

duplicatis, de margine externo retro productis ; quarum

discoidales paulum longiores, a neura externo-media

longe abstantes: area intermedia inferior neuris rectis

tenuibus; prima (subexterno-media) gracili; aliis e basi

radiantibus, subapproximatis, tribus, basi paulum inspis-

satis, deinde quasi duplicatis, quarum ultima analis.

Pedes antici trochanteribus femoris tibiisque longitudine

fere equalibus.; tarsorum articulis 4, fere similibus, basali

robustiore, apicali tenuiore ; intermedw fere consimiles;

postici coxis reniformibus, trochanteribus subovatis,

robustis ; tibiis tenuioribus.

Puparium, operculo oculorum situ fenestrulis paucis

minutissimis instructo.

Species 1. Paraxenos Hrberi, n. s.

Elongatus, ater, pedibus fuscis, antennarum ramis

longitudine fere cogequalibus.

Long. corp. 2 lin.

In Mus. nostro.

Habitat Insulam Corcyram ; larva in Bembecino (Larra)

peregrino Smithi (var. B. bituberculato, Forsteri) alita ;

mares in pupariis, foemineque, cum altoribus prope

latebras, in sabuletis, mense Maio exeunte crebro lecti;

ubi a diligente Entomologo J. Hrbero Vindobonensi (mihi

sodale et amico cui species dicatur) imprimis detecti.

Species 2. Paraxenos Corcyricus, n. s.

A precedente differt antennis brevioribus, ramis latio-

ribus, pedibus entetis longissimis, tenuibus, luteis.

Long. corp. $ lin.

Habitat Preilesen Corcyram cum Odynero spinipede,

L., cujus exemplar, marium puparia quatuor sub abdo-

minis segmentis 20, 30, 40, et 50, superne alternatim

dextra sinistraque exhibens, in sabuletis die 16 Mai

lectum ; e quibus die 22 ejusdem mensis imagines tres

obtinui.

Stylopide. 47

Species 3. Parawxenos Sieboldit.

Syn. Xenos Sphecidarum, Dufour, Ann. Sc. Nat, Pari-

siis: ser. 2, Tom. VII. p. 19, 1837 (fcemina). Siebold;

N. Schrift. d. Naturforsch, Gesellsch. in Danz. 111-2,

p-. 72, 1839, Tab. III. fig. 68 (mas.), fig. 62, (foemina)

commus fig. 70 (larva primitiva).

(Z descriptione Sieboldiana germanice edita.)

Fuliginosus; pedibus piceis; alis lacteis, margine

antico brunneo; antennarum ramis lateraliter compressis,

interno semper paulo longiore.

Long. corp. 14 lin.

Expans. alar. 2 lin,

Primum cum Ammophili sabulosé, L., a Dom. BD.

Dufourio, Gallia meridionali, mense Augusto (1834)

foeminee bine detectz fuerunt.

Mox quoque cum Ammophilad ipsa et Misco campestri

Latr. ab egregio Entomologo Dre. C. 7’. Sieboldio in

Germania, mares foeminzeque cum prole, haud raro, a

mense Junio usque ad zstatem exeuntem reperiebantur ;

maribus antennarum articuli furcati, ut in tabula loc. cit.

delineantur, (k) cum typo generico veri Paraxeni con-

cordantes.

Ob tamen origmem communem cum plurimis: aliis

Sphecidarum incolis, hec species (velut in X. Vesparum

casu) distinctionis gratia in honorem Clar. Viri dicatur.

Species 4. Paraxenos Westwood, Templ.

Xenos Westwovdit, Templ. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser.

Ta, rom. fis pot, Tab, TV.

(EZ descriptione Templetoniand anglice edita.)

Antennce subrobustx, 4-articulate; articulo basali

brevi, subcylindrico, basin versus subcontracto, apice

(k) Antennarum stipes triarticulatus secundum descriptionem (I. ¢., p.

79) vix abnormis opinor (vide p. 9, ante, Annotatio g).

48 Mr. S. S. Saunders on Stylopide.

dilatato, interne porrecto, subtriangulari; secundo minimo,

medio constricto, subtus quasi cyathiformi, ubi articulus

tertius affixus; illis hirsutis, reliquis duobus tessellatis ;

tertio compresso, elongato, medio dilatato, apice rotun-

dato; basi subito rectangulariter divertente, acetabulo

basali ad quartum sustinendum ; quarto retrorsum et

supra partem prolongatam tertii recumbente, longitudine

fere quarta parte excedente, et similiter medio, basique

postice paulum dilatato.

Mandibule elongate, angustz, vix arcuate, apice

valde acute, incurve.

Palpi (tri-2) [bi-] articulati; articulo basali (minimo ? ;

secundo?) magno, tumido, paulo retrorsum curvato;

apicali parvo, cylindrico, dense hirto.

Pedes antici tenues, breviores ; coxis [ trochanteribus ? ]

brevibus, tumidis, curvatis; femoribus paulo longioribus,

subtriangularibus; ¢ibiis elongatis, clavatis ; tarsis 4-arti-

culatis, articulo basali longiore; reliquis longitudine

diminuentibus, bilobatis, appendiculatis, subtus margini-

busque hirsutis. Vesiculz: desunt.

Long. corp. 2? lin.

Habitat Brasiliam, cum Sphece aurocapilla Temple-

toni.

Tot altoribus jam citatis quorum Stylopidarum alumni

nondum deteguntur, aliisque adjiciendis, vasta regio

exploranda manet, ubi plurima arcana elicienda occul-

tantur.

Divisio B. HOMOPTEROBIA.

Sub-fam. 5.

Insectum Homopteron, Fulgoridarum Familie, ex

Archipelago Indico in Museo Hopeiano Oxonie conser-

vatum, Stylopidarum exuvias exhibens, a Professore West-

woodio annotatum, (/) cujus descriptionem fusiorem ab

ipso Cel. Auctore mox exoptamus, citare opportet ;

quod interim in divisionem exclusivam collocamus.

(l) Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 8a, Tom. V. (Acta) p. [xxxviii.

( 49 )

II. On certain species of Pericopides in the Collection

of Mr. W. Wilson Saunders: with a List of the

described species pertaining to that Group. By

Artuur G. Burier, F.L.S., F.Z.8., &.

[Read 1st January, 1872.].

Mr. Saunners having kindly allowed me to describe the

new species of Pericopides in his Collection, I have taken

this opportunity of correcting one or two errors to which

Mr. Brown, his Curator, has called my attention.

Upon comparing the types of P. bivittata in the British

Museum, and P. disjuncta in the Collection of Mr.

Saunders, it was found that the two forms are specifically

identical, the differences between them being merely

individual in character.

The genus Daritis is identical with Pericopis in struc-

ture, and I think it quite likely that D. marginalis may

prove to be the female of P. dissimulans.

My P. lunifera (type in Coll. Saunders) is P. turbida,

of Htibner’s Zutrige; the latter was placed amongst the

varieties of the species in the National Collection, P.

Aglaura and P. tricolora being considered as opposite

sexes of the typical form.

The following are new species :—

Genus EsTHEema.

Esthema confluens (Felder, in litt.).

Alege supra coeruleo-nigre ; antice fascia postmediana

subhyalina alba, introrsum obliqua, extrorsum arcuata a

venis nigris interrupta; postice areis basali et interna

nitente virescentibus, fascia media lata, utrinque subito

angustata, subhyalina, alba, a venis nigris interrupta:

corpus nitide virescens, capite albo-punctato, antennis

nigro-fuscis.

Ale subtus nigrescentes, area basali viridi-striata:

corpus griseum a latere virescens, thorace albo-punctato,

abdomine albido annulato.

Hab.—Villa Nova.

Allied to H. speciosa.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—part i. (APRIL) E

50 Mr. Arthur G. Butler on

Genus Perricopis.

1. Pericopis noctwites.

Alz anticee supra subhyaline, fumato-fusce ; macula

discoidali rotundata nigro-fusca albido-cincta, altera

disco-cellulari quadrata fusca; fascia interna cuneiformi

nigro-fusca ; area apicali et margine externo decrescente

nigrescente, extrorsum et introrsum albicante: postice

niveo-hyaline, margine externo et apice nigris ; costa

cinerea: corpus thorace piceo-fusca, collo albido, abdo-

mine cinereo ad basin nigro-fasciolato, ano aurantiaco:

alee subtus albicantes, omnes macula basali coccinea,

aliter velut supra: corporis abdomine albicante.

Hab.—Mainas Geraes ? (Rogers).

Allied to P. parnassiodes, Wlk.

2. Pericopis rubripicta.

Ale supra fuscze ; anticee vena costali, macula quadrata

discoidali subterminali, striga mediana submediana a basi

ad marginis externi medium currente in ramum primum

medianum area cinerea interrupta, a margine ad venam

costalem fascia obliqua subapicali currente, pallide sul-

phureis; venis nigris ; basi flavescente ; macula discoidali

altera discocellulari et tertia subanali squamosis coc-

cineis ; postice basi albido rorata, macula bifida discoidali

et altera trifida subapicali sulphureis ; serie punctorum

quatuor rubrorum apicalium oblique positorum et plaga

magna quadrifida subanali cuneiformi roseo-rubra : corpus

thorace fusco, collo tegulisque flavis ; abdomine nigro a

latere flavo sex-fasciolato, ano aurantiaco: ale subtus

fasciis maculisque distinctioribus, omnes macula basali

coccinea: corpus nigro-fuscum, abdomine a latere maculis

sex aureo-flavis, fasciolas terminantibus, ano aurantiaco.

Hab.—Bogota.

Belongs to the sacrifica group, and comes near P.

Woodii, Butler.

3. Pericopis fenestrata.

4 Affinis P. Theti, ¢ (Daritis Thetis, Wlk.), alis

minoribus, anticis costa longiore margine externo magis

Pericopides. 51

obliquo, interno breviore; fasciis hyalinis multo latiori-

bus ; dimidio basali cellee discoidalis hyalino ; area externa

pallidiore, punctis septem submarginalibus hyalinis ; pos-

tice strigula discocellulari minus angulata; area externa

aurantiaca angustiore introrsum vix nigro limitata: ale

subtus dilutiores.

Hab.—S. Geronimo, Vera Paz (Salvin).

A local form of the Mexican P. Thetis.

—_——__ —_—_——

The Pericopides, according to the original arrangement

in the second volume of Mr. Walker’s ‘ Lepidoptera

Heterocera,’ were an ill-defined group, probably intended

to extend from Hsthema to the end of Chrysauge; but

in the seventh volume, p. 1653, the limits of the group

are defined, a family being formed under the title of

Pericopide, for the reception of the following genera :—

Hsthema, Heleona, Hyalurga, Cistidia, Dysphania, Peri-

copis, Phaloé, Phaloésia, Composia, and Hucyane; Mr.

Walker remarks that this family ‘is connected with the

Melameride by means of Hsthema and Hucyane, and has

some affinities with the Arctiide ;’ no structural charac-

ters are given.

As I do not consider the Pericopides to be sufficiently

distinct from the Arctiide to form a separate family, I

have hitherto referred them to that family in the vicinity

of Callimorpha.

Excepting that I should add the two genera Stenele

and Hyelosia, I at present see no objection to the adop-

tion of Mr. Walker’s ‘Family’ as a subgroup of the

Arctiide ; the order of affinity in the genera seems to be

Hsthema, Bucyane, Composia, Phaloésia, Stenele, Hyalurga,

Hyelosia, Phaloé, Pericopis: I omit Heleona, Cistidia, and

Dysphania, because I have not seen types of these

groups, and inasmuch as they are Indo-Australian, whilst

all the other genera are Tropical American, it is quite

possible that they may prove to be more nearly alhed to

the Lithosvide* than to the Arctiide. The whole of the

American Genera are characterized by having the an-

tenn prominently pectinated in the males and nearly

* The Pericopides are placed in this family by Mr. Walker, to whom I

am indebted for much information respecting the Heterocera generally.

E 2

52 Mr. Arthur G. Butler on

simple in the females, the palpi are of moderate length,

the last joint being tolerably long and porrect. Dr.

Felder remarks (Wien. Ent. Mon. VI.)—‘‘ Genera

Hsthema, Hucyane, Anthomyza,* Phaloé, Phaloésia, Diop-

tis, Composia et alia ad primi abdominalis annuli latera

duo exhibent foramina, operculo globuliformi tecta.”

I am acquainted with descriptions of the following

species :-—

Esturma, Hiibner. t

1. 4. bicolora, Cr. pl. 143, A.

E. dichroa, Hiibner, Samml, Ex. Schmett. 1, pl. 187.

Hab.—Para. B. M.

H. Aletta, Cr. pl. 396, C.

Hab.—Surinam.

3. H. simulata, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. Suppl. p. 1872.

EH. mimica, Walk., l. c., p. 1874.

Hab.—Bogota. B.M.

4. H. plagifera, Feld., Wien. HE. Mon. 6, p. 230.

Hab.—Rio Negro.

5. HH. speciosa, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. Suppl. p. 1873.

Hab.—Bogota. B. M.

6. EH. Herrona, Butler, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Oct.

1871, p. 285.

Hab.—Bogota. Coll. Saunders.

7. EH. eupleodes, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Colombia. Coll. Saunders.

8. HEH. uraneides, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Cayenne. Coll. Saunders.

9. H.confluens, Butler, ante p. 49.

Hab.—Villa Nova.

bo

* = Pericopis.

+ Included two types, FE. dichrow and papilionaria; the latter is now

referred to the genus Cycloria.

Pericopides. O83

Eucyane, Hiibner. *

1. HH. Celadon, Cr., pl. 132, EH.

Hab.—Surinam.

2. SH. Pylotes, Dr., Ill. Ex. Ent. 2, pl. 5, fig. 3.

Hab.—Mexico. B. M.

3. H. glauca, Cr., pl. 107, E.

Hab.—Para. B.M.

4. H.amica, Cr., pl. 370, H.

Hab.—Surinam, Cr. — ? (an sp. dist.?) B.M.

5. EH. Militia, Cr., pl. 370, I.

Hab.—Surinam.

6. H. temperata, Walker, Cat. Lep. Het. 7, p. 1656.

Hab.—Tapajos (Walk.); Hga. B. M.

The Upper Amazons form of H. glauca.

7. H.uranicola, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. Suppl. p. 1875.

Hab.—EHga, Bogota. B. M.

8. H. uranophila, Walk., loc. cit., p. 1874.

Hab.—St. Paulo, Peru. B. M.

9. H. uranigera, Walk., loc. cit., p. 1876.

Hab.—St. Paulo. B. M.

10. H. Hystaspes, Butler, P.Z.S., Jan. 1871, p. 82.

Hab.—Venezuela. B. M.

11. H. Melazantha, Hiibner, Samml. Ex. Schmett. 1,

pl. 188.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

Comrosta, Hiibner. t

1. OC. Sybaris, Cr., pl. 71, EH.

Bombyx credula, Fabr., E. 8. 3, 1, p. 475.

Hab.—Haiti; Jamaica. B. M.

* The first and last species are congeneric.

+ Type C. credula.

54 Mr. Arthur G. Butler on

Puatorsta, Walker. *

1. P. saucia, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 359.

Hab.—Venezuela ; Nicaragua. B. M.

2. P. Olympia, Butler, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., Oct..

IS71e"p.7 290.

Hab.—Brazil. Coll. Saunders.

SreneLe, Walker. f

1. SS. translata, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 356.

Hab.—Para; Tapajos. B.M.

Hyaturea, Hiibner. t

1. Z. fenestra, Linn., M. L. U. p. 372; Hyalurga fenes-

trigera, Hiibner, Verz.p. 174. Sphinw (adscita)

Ligeon, Cr., pl. 59, B.

Hab.—Venezuela. B. M.

dq oH. Lie Butler, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., Oct. 1871,

. 286.

Hin poe Amazons. Coll. Saunders.

3. HH. albovitrea, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. Suppl. 1, p. 159.

Hab.—Ega. B. M.

Gyara, Walker. §

1. G. fenestrata, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 4, p. 915.

Hab.—Para; Rio. B.M.

I doubt the propriety of separating this species from

the genus Hyalurga, and therefore have not mentioned

it in my list of genera, it is referred to the Pericopides in

Mr. Walker’s supplement.

Hyxxosia, Hiibner. ||

1. H. Tiresia, Cr. 400, B g; 85,B 9. Hyelosia Clio,

Hiibn., Verz. p. 174.

Hab.—Para. B. M.

I feel doubtful about the sexes on Cramer’s plate being

conspecific.

* Type P. saucia.

+ Type S. translata.

t Type H. fenestrigera=fenestra, L.

§ Type G. fenestrata.

|| Type doubtful, but, restricted by Mr. Walker, it becomes H. Tiresia.

Pericopides. 50

2. HH. heliconides, Swains., Zool. Ill. 2nd §S. pl. 124,

fig. 2.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

PHALOE, Guérin.

1. YP. cruenta, Hibner, Samml. Ex. Schmett. Zutr. figs.

329, 330.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

The specimens mentioned by Mr. Walker from Vene-

zuela are quite distinct.

Prricopis, Hiibner. *

1. P. catilina, Cr., pl. 79, figs. EH. F. Phalena catili-

naria, Fabr., Sp. Ins. p. 250. P. Nasica, Fabr.,

Ent. Syst. 3, p. 169. Pericopis perspicua, Walk.,

Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 344.

Hab.—Ega; Para. B. M.

2. PP. ignita, Butler, Fabr., Cat. p. 291; Lep. Exot. pl.

U7; fie" 3:

Hab.—Tapajos. B. M.

The two species above mentioned nearly resemble the

species of Hyelosia.

3. P. Isse, Hiibner, Samml. Ex. Schmett. 507.

Hab.—Ega. B. M.

4, P. decisa, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 345.

Hab.—Bogota. B. M.

5. P. angulosa, Walk., loc. cit.

Hab.—Venezuela. B.M.

6. P. Zerbina, Stoll, Suppl. Cr., pl. 70, fig. 3.

Hab.—S. America. B.M.

( ©. Hurocilia, Cr., pl. 178, C.

Hab.—W. Indies.

8. P. indecisa, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 347.

Hab.—Rio Janeiro. B. M.

9. P. subguttata, Walk., loc. cit.

Hab.—Rio Janeiro. B. M.

* Four congeneric species as types.

56 Mr. Arthur G. Butler on

10. P. bivittata, Walk., loc. cit., p. 348. P. disjuncta,

Walk., J. ¢., 7, p. 1655.

Hab.—Venezuela. B. M.

ll. P. humeralis, Walk., loc. cit.

Hab.———? B. M.

12. P. nubila, Walk., loc. cit., p. 349.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

13. P. patula, Walk., loc. cit.

Hab.—Bolivia. B. M.

14. P. submarginata, Walk., loc. cit., p. 350.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

15. P. parnassiodes, Walk., loc. cit.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

16. P. Aglaura, Cr., pl. 263, F, ¢.

Hab.—Venezuela. B.M., go, @.

17. P. Jansonis, Butler, Lep. Ex. pl. 17, figs. 4, 5.

Hab.—Nicaragua. B.M., 9°.

18. P. turbida, Hiibn., Samml. Ex. Schm. Zutr. figs.

529, 30. P. lunifera, Butler, Ann. & Mag.

Nat. Hist. 1871, p. 288.

Hab.—Bahia. B.M., ¢?.

19. P. tricolora, Cr., pl. 263, EH.

Hab.—Para; Brazil. B.M., dg, ¢..

20. P. leucophea, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 352.

Hab.—Mexico. B. M.

21. P. rosina, Butler, P.Z.S. p. 82 (1871); Lep. Ex.

pl 30; fet.

Hab.—Ega. B. M.

22. P. subapicalis, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. 2, p. 352.

Hab.—Brazil. B. M.

23. P. larvata, Walk., loc. cit., 7, p. 1654.

Hab.—Amazons Valley. Coll. Saunders.

24. P.rorata, Walk., Cat. Lep. Het. Suppl. 1, p. 154.

Hab.—Bogota. Coll. Birchall.

Seems to come near P. parnassiodes.

25. P. dissimulata, Walk., loc. cit., p. 155.

Hab.—Bogota. B. M.

Pericopides. a7

26. P. dissimulans, Walk., loc. cit.

Hab.—Bogota. B. M.

27. P. Arema, Boisd., Lep. Guat. p. 85 (Thebrone) .

Hab.—Nicaragua; Venezuela.

Evidently allied to the preceding species.

28. P.rubrimargo, Boisd., Lep. Guat. p. 89 (Thebr.).

Hab.—Honduras and Mexico.

Evidently near P. leucophea.

29. P. salvatoria, Boisd., Lep. Guat. p. 86 (Aphisaon).

Hab.—Honduras and Guatemala.

Also near P. leucophea.

30. P. sacrifica, Hibn., Ex. Schmett. Zutr. 473, 4 9.

Hab.—Ipaunema. Coll. Saunders.

The male is smaller than the female, and has the bands

of front-wings and the whole of hind-wings, except the

margin, hyaline-white.

dl. P. Woodii, Butler, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 3rd

8., Vol. 20, p. 218, pl. 4, figs. 2, 3 (Mazeras

Woodit).

Hab.—Bahia. Coll. Wood.

32. P. Thetis, Klug, Neuere Schmett. 6, 4, figs. 1, 2.

Hab—Mexico. B.M.

33. P. marginalis, Walker, Cat. Lep. Het. 3, p. 618.

Hab.—Venezuela. B.M.

Possibly ? of P. dissimulans, mentioned above.

34. P. Hydra, Butler, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Oct.

1871, p. 286.

Hab.—Hcuador. Coll. Saunders.

35. P. Ithrana, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Amazons. Coll. Saunders.

36. P. Kenara, Butler, loc. cit., p. 287.

Hab.—Sta Martha. Coll. Saunders.

37. P. fulgorata, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Para. Coll. Saunders.

38. PF. Hazara, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Villa Nova and Ecuador. Coll. Saunders.

58 Mr. Arthur G. Butler on Pericopides.

39. LP. formosissima, Butler, loc. cit., p. 288.

Hab.—Colombia and Ecuador. Coll. Saunders.

40. P. Thyridina, Butler, loc. cit., p. 289.

Hab.—Ecuador. Coll. Saunders.

41. P. vestalis, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Brazil. Coll. Saunders.

42. P. Holofernes, Butler, loc. cit.

Hab.—Minas Geraes. Coll. Saunders.

43, P. Irenides, Butler, Cist. Ent. 4, p. 88.

Hab.—Cartago, Costa Rica. Coll. Janson.

44, P. Leonina, Butler, loc. cit., p. 89.

Hab.—Cartago, Costa Rica. Coll. Janson.

45. P. noctuites, Butler, ante p. 50.

Hab.—Minas Geraes (?). Coll. Saunders.

46. P. rubripicta, Butler, lL. ¢.

Hab.—Bogota. Coll. Saunders.

47. LP. fenestrata, Butler, l. c.

Hab.—S8. Geronimo. Coll. Saunders.

I have indicated the following species in the ‘ Annals’

for October, 1871, and unless the 4th Part of the Lepi-

doptera of the ‘Novara Voyage’ appear beforehand, I

shall figure them with the other species which I have

described.

48, P. Salvini (Felder, MS.) Butl., Ann. & Mag. Nat.

Hist., Oct. 1871, p. 290.

Hab.—Polochic Valley. Coll. Saunders.

49. P. mimica (Felder, MS.), Butl., loc. cit.

Hab.—Upper Orinoco. Coll. Saunders.

50. P. Histrio (Felder, MS.) Butl., loc. cit. .

Hab.—Villa Nova, Coll. Saunders; St. Paulo, B. M.

In the above List, I have not attempted any arrange-

ment according to affinities, but to the best of my belief,

I have not overlooked anything ; however, without going

carefully through the whole of the Macro-Lepidoptera,

it would be impossible to be certain that species so subject

to mimetic modification as the Pericopides, have not here

and there been misplaced, and thus passed by.

( 59 )

Ill. Descriptions of some Species of Cassididee new to

science. By J. 8. Baty, F.L.S.

[Read 4th March, 1872.]

Tue insects described in the present paper have been

(with only two exceptions) collected by Mr. Buckley,

during his recent expeditions to Ecuador; many of the

species, although differing sufficiently in structural

characters, and in several instances, belonging to dis-

tinct genera, show a remarkable similarity in their

markings and coloration, being another instance of the

well-known fact, that insects coming from the same

locality often follow, to a certain extent, a common

pattern in the arrangement of the colour on the surface

of the bodies.

There are yet some other species collected by Mr.

Buckley, not here described, remaining in my collection ;

these I hope to make the subject of a future paper.

List of Species.

Dolichotoma instabilis, Ecuador. Mesomphalia perjucunda, Keuador.

_ sericea, Fi ie emorsitans, ,,

Calaspidea contacta, m > latissima, a

Mesomphatia deliciosa, a 7 consociata, Bolivia.

a pauperula, ,, ‘ pecilaspoides, Keuad.

Pe Buckleyi, 3 Omaspides _ bivittata, cA

pectinata, y, fe abbreviata, aS

on Pascoet, - Batonota distincta, ‘s

in interjecta, ,, i Jansoni, Chontales.

Dolichotoma instabilis.

Rotundata, postice paullo attenuata, convexa, cuprea

aut nigro-znea, antennis nigris; dorso subnitido, pube

cinerea adsperso ; thorace longitudine duplo latiori, late-

ribus ab apice ad basin oblique ampliatis, angulis pos-

ticis lateraliter productis, acutis; supra fere impunc-

tato, utrinque irregulariter excavato, medio longitudi-

naliter canaliculato; elytris thorace duplo latioribus,

lateribus basi late rotundato-ampliatis, ante medium ad

apicem angustato-rotundatis, prope apicem citius angus-

tatis, apice conjunctim late rotundatis; dorso convexis,

basi retusis, deinde transversim gibbosis, irregulariter

TRANS. ENT. SOC. 1872.—PART 1. (APRIL.)

60 Mr. J. S. Baly on

elevato-reticulatis, reticulo nitido, areolas parvas irregu-

lare opacas includenti; margine laterali antice late,

postice modice, explanato, fere plano, vittaé lata, superfi-

ciem fere amplectente, supra disci marginem extensa,

rufo-testaced, ornato. Mas.

Triangularis, elytrorum lateribus basi oblique ampliatis,

paullo ante medium obtuse angulatis, hinc ad apicem

rotundato-angustatis, apice subacute rotundatis. Hem.

Var. a. LElytrorum margine laterali disco concolori,

sanguineo vel testaceo-reticulato.

Var. b. Elytris totis unicoloribus.

Long. 7-8 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

D. instabilis is very variable both in colour and shape ;

some males being less rotundate, and some specimens of

the other sex more triangular than the rest; it may be

separated from D. Salvinii, metallica and all the other

species to which it is most closely allied, by having the

whole of its upper surface sparingly clothed with short

pubescence.

Dolichotoma sericea.

Rotundata, modice convexa, nigro-znea, subopaca,

antennis, basi exceptis, nigris, subtus magis nitida;

femoribus antice antennarumque basi pallide testaceis ;

thorace longitudine plus duplo latiori, apice utrinque

sinuato, medio leviter producto, lateribus ante medium

late rotundato-ampliatis, pone medium fere rectis, paral-

lelis ; disco medio convexo, pube adpressa argenteo-cinerea

dense vestito, margine laterali lineAque longitudinal

centrali, postice tenuiter canaliculata, glabris; elytris

pube adpressa cinereé brevissimé vestitis, thorace latior-

ibus, lateribus a basi ad medium late rotundato-ampliatis,

ultra medium ad apicem rotundato-angustatis, apice con-

junctim late rotundatis; supra modice convexis, basi

leviter impressis, ante medium obsolete gibbosis, fortiter

punctatis, punctis prope suturam subseriatim dispositis ;

margine laterali late explanato, remote punctato.

Long. 7$ lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

Dolichotoma sericea is similar in form to D. speciosa, the

latter species may, however, be at once known by the

Cassidide. 61

glabrous surface of the body, and by the entirely different

coloration; both species agree in the almost entire

absence of the gibbosity of the elytra; in the present

insect, however, it is slightly more distinct than in D.

speciosa. Five lower joints of antenne, together with

the base of the sixth, pale testaceous, stained at their

apices with piceous. M. puberula, Boh., and Batonota

distincta, mihi, the latter described below, both strongly

resemble D. sericea in pubescence and colour.

Calaspidea contacta.

Subrotundata, postice modice attenuata, convexa, gla-

bra, obscure nigro-anea, subnitida, subtus nitida, antennis

nigris, gracilibus; thorace longitudine duplo latiori,

lateribus pone apicem fere ad basin oblique ampliatis,

basi rotundatis; dorso utrinque concavo, impunctato ;

elytris thorace multo latioribus, humeris leviter sed

distincte antrorsum prominulis, apice rotundatis ; lateri-

bus pone humeros fere ad medium rotundato-ampliatis,

hinc ad apicem rotundato-angustatis, apice conjunctim

rotundatis ; disco convexis, a basin ultra medium perparum

elevatis, hinc ad apicem declivibus, elevato-reticulatis,

reticulo nitido, punctato, areolas sat magnas opacas in-

cludenti; margine laterali late explanato, leviter deflexo,

confertim sed tenuiter punctato, vitta fulva plus minusve

erosa vel interrupta, rufo-tincta, plerumque piceo-macu-

lata, fere a basi ad apicem extensa, ornato.

Long. 83 lin.

Hab.—Ecuador.

This beautiful species so closely resembles Mesomphalia

Pascoe, that at first sight I placed it in my cabinet

in the immediate neighbourhood of that imsect; on

examination however, for the purpose of description, I

found that it belonged to the present genus ; it possesses

the narrow thorax of A. alurna and Columbiana, the

slender antenne of CO. discors, regalis, and their allies,

and the convexity of C. divalis and Colossa; it is easily

separated from any of these insects by one or other of

the above-named structural characters, and also by the

peculiar pattern of its elytra.

62 Mr. J. S. Baly on

Calaspidea Colossa, Boh.

Mon. Cass. Suppl. p. 93.

Var. b. Elytrorum vitta intramarginali obsoleta, mar-

gine prope apicem maculis parvis sanguineis notato.

Hab.—Ecuador.

Mesomphalia deliciosa.

Late subtriangularis, apice acuminata ; convexa, dorso

gibboso, nigro-zenea aut nigra, subopaca, glabra, subtus

nitida, antennis nigris ; thorace longitudine duplo latiori,

lateribus pone apicem oblique ampliatis, vix pone medium

rectis, parallelis; disco opaco, utrinque concavo:; elytris

thorace multo latioribus, humeris antrorsum paullo pro-

minulis, apice rotundatis ; lateribus pone humeros fere ad

medium amplhato-rotundatis, hinc ad apicem oblique

rotundato-angustatis, apice conjunctim acuminatis; disco

convexis, basi retusis, obtuse gibbosis, distincte sed

leviter punctatis, subopacis, obsolete elevato-reticulatis ;

margine laterali antice late, postice modice, explanato,

paullo defiexo, subcrebre punctato, margine externo

anguste reflexo, plagé oblong, postice attenuata, a paullo

infra basin ad longe pone medium extensa rufo aut fulvo-

testacea, ornato.

Var.a. Elytrorum plagis intramarginalibus obsoletis,

margine prope medium parce sanguineo-reticulatis.

Long. 6-7 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

This striking insect is nearly allied to M. tevtilis,

Guér., but it is broader in proportion to its length, while

at the same time the apices of the elytra are more

acute; the sides of the thorax are also less oblique ; it

differs besides entirely in colour and pattern.

Mesomphalia pauperula.

Late subtriangularis, convexa, dorso gibbosa, obscure

nigro-znea, subopaca, subtus nitida, antennis nigris; his

basi femorumque facie antica pallide piceis; thorace

longitudine duplo latiori, lateribus pone apicem ad paullo

ultra medium oblique ampliatis, deinde ad basin fere

rectis; disco pube argenteo-sericed brevissim4 sparse

Cassidide. 63

vestito, utrinque concavo, intra marginem lined obliqua

impresso, lateribus late reflexis ; medio convexo, punctis

magnis 4, quadratim dispositis, profunde impresso ; ely-

tris thorace multo latioribus, humeris antrorsum vix

prominulis, apice rotundatis, lateribus infra humeros fere

ad medium ampliato-rotundatis, a medio ad apicem

oblique rotundato-angustatis, apice conjunctim acutis;

supra pube brevissima sparse vestitis, disco convexis,

basi retusis, obtuse gibbosis, fortiter punctatis, punctis

magnis, interstitiis elevatis, reticulas irregulares formanti-

bus ; margine laterali late explanato, fortiter, minus crebre

punctato, vitta laté a paullo infra basin fere ad apicem

extensd, superficiem fere amplectante, fulvo-testaceda,

postice infuscata, ornato.

Long. 6 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

At first sight, the single specimen from which I have

drawn up the above description, looks like a starved

individual of the former species, but in addition to the

more oblique sides of the thorax, and the peculiar sculp-

turing of its disc, the broader form, the less acuminate

apex, and the deeper punctation of the elytra, will easily

separate it from that insect.

Mesomphalia Buckleyt.

Late ovata, postice attenuata, modice convexa, nigro-

znea, antennis nigris; supra subnitida, pube adpressi

grisea, vestit’; subtus nitida; thorace longitudine plus

duplo latiori, obscure eeneo, subtiliter punctato, lateribus

apice truncatis, transversim productis, hinc ad medium

oblique ampliatis, deinde subito rotundatis, pone me-

dium ad basin fere rectis, parellelis; elytris thorace

latioribus, basi rotundato-ampliatis, humeris obsoletis ;

latioribus ante medium ad apicem rotundato-angustatis,

apice rotundatis; disco convexis, ante medium citius

elevatis, irregulariter elevato-reticulatis, reticulo nitido,

areolas sat magnas punctatas includenti; margine laterali

late explanato, ¢ fere horizontali, 9 magis deflexo, cre-

bre punctato, vitt&é fusco-flava, utrinque irregulariter et

profunde eros’, interdum interruptd, a basi ad apicem

extens4, ornato.

Long. 9-11 lines.

64. Mr. J. S. Baly on

Hab.—Ecuador.

Thorax more than twice as broad as long; sides trun-

cate at the apex, then subobliquely enlarged to the

middle, straight and parallel from behind the latter to

the apex; disc slightly concave on either side, trans-

versely convex in the middle, impressed in the medial

line with a faint longitudinal groove; surface subnitidous,

very finely and subremotely punctured, very sparingly

clothed with short adpressed sericeous hairs; elytra twice

as broad at their widest part as the thorax, shoulders

broadly ampliate-rotundate, the humeral angles entirely

obsolete; sides rounded and narrowed from the middle to

the apex, the latter conjointly rounded ; upper surface

of disc convex, the highest portion of the convexity,

especially in the ¢, being before the middle; surface

covered with raised, shining, impunctate reticulations,

which enclose irregular, opaque, punctured areolz, these

spaces are frequently covered with small reticulations,

which render the large ones less defined.

Mesomphalia pectinata.

Rotundata ¢, postice attenuata ? , modice convexa,

nigro-zenea, subopaca, pube adpressa grisea sparse ves-

tita, subtus nitida, antennis nigris ; thorace longitudine

duplo latiori ?, paullo latiori ¢, lateribus ab apice ad

longe pone medium oblique ampliatis, basi ipso subrectis,

disco pube adpressa vestito ; elytris thorace latioribus, hu-

meris late rotundato-ampliatis, angulis obsoletis ; lateribus

a medio ad apicem angustato-rotundatis (postice magis

angustatis 9), disco modice convexis, elevato-reticulatis,

reticulo subnitido, areolas magnas, opacas, obsolete punc-

tatas includenti; margine laterali late explanato, crebre

sed tenuiter punctato, vix obliquo, vitta submarginali,

fere a basi ad apicem extens4, intus ramulos nonnulles

(circa 5) ad disci marginem emittente, pallide flavo-fulva,

ornato.

Long. 9-10 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

A broader and shorter insect than M. Buckleyi, less

convex, sides of the thorax much more obliquely dilated,

more coarsely pubescent; the reticulations on the disc of

the elytra are also larger, and enclose opaque, nearly

impunctate areole ; the pattern on the lateral margin is

Cassidide. 65

also entirely different: in M. Buckleyi* the fulvous vitta

is placed on the inner portion of the margin, extending

for a short distance over the disc; both its edges are

irregular, but it is far more deeply notched on its outer

side. In M. pectinata, on the other hand, the stripe is

placed near the outer edge of the lateral margin, its

outer border is entire, and it emits from its inner edge a

number of short transverse fasciz, which extend inwards

as far as the margin of the disc.

Mesomphalia Pascoet.

Rotundata, postice paullo attenuata, modice convexa,

obscure nigro-znea aut nigra, subopaca, pube sericea

vestita, subtus magis nitida, antennis nigris; thorace

longitudine fere duplo latiori, lateribus pone apicem

oblique ampliatis, deinde rotundatis, pone medium rectis,

paullo divaricatis; disco levi, medio convexo, tenuiter

longitudinaliter canaliculato, utrinque concavo, lateribus

late reflexis, pube depress4 argenteo-sericeé minus dense

vestito; elytris thorace multo latioribus, humeris non

prominulis 4; leviter antrorsum productis Q ; apice

rotundatis; lateribus pone humeros fere ad medium

rotundato-ampliatis, pone medium ad apicem rotundato-

angustatis, apice conjunctim subacute rotundatis aut

rotundatis; disco modice convexis, basi citius elevatis,

pube suberecté adspersis, elevato-reticulatis, reticulo

nitido, hic illic fortiter punctato, disco exteriori sepe

obsoleto, areolas sat parvas irregulares opacas inclu-

dente; margine laterali late explanato, vix deflexo ¢;

magis deflexo ante medium ¢?; subcrebre punctato, vitta

submarginali angusta, pallide fulva, intus ramulos non-

nullos irregulares, sepe interruptos, nonnihil obsoletos

emittante, ornato.

Long. 8-9 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

This species is very similar in pattern to M. pectinata ;

it is at once known by the narrow thorax, the distinct

humeral angles of the elytra, the coarse pubescence,

* The vitta in the $ and 9? of this species covers a larger portion of

the surface, and extends much closer to the border of the elytra; but its

outer margin is even more deeply notched than in the other sex.

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1872.—PART I. (APRIL.) P

66 Mr. J. 8. Baly on

and lastly, by the greater irregularity of the short fascize

which arise from the inner border of the lateral vitta ;

these are often interrupted and sometimes entirely obso-

lete, the vitta itself occasionally being itself reduced

to a narrow submarginal line; in some specimens the

fulvous markings are more or less stamed with piceous.

Mesomphalia interjecta.

Subtriangularis, convexa, obscure nigro-eenea, sub-

nitida, pube brevi adpress4 cinerea sparsissime vestita,

subtus nitida, antennis nigris; thorace longitudine plus

duplo latiori, lateribus pone apicem fere ad medium late

explanatis, leviter rotundatis, deinde cite rotundatis, pone

medium ad basin rectis, fere parallelis; dorso tenuiter

subremote punctato, utrinque irregulariter sed leviter

foveolato, medio ante basin transversim excavato; elytris

thorace multo latioribus; lateribus a basi fere ad medium

rotundato-ampliatis, hinc ad apicem angustatis et leviter

rotundatis, apice conjunctim rotundatis; disco convexis,

pone basin citius elevatis, distincte subcrebre punctatis,

irregulariter elevato-reticulatis, reticulo nitido, disco

exteriori prope marginem obsoleto, areolas sat magnas

opacas includente, margine laterali ante medium late,

pone medium modice explanato, subfortiter punctato,

obscure fusco-zeneo, plagis irregularibus 6, prope disci

marginem positis, disco ipso paullo incurrentibus, vittam

interruptam formantibus, sordide fulvis, ornato.

Long. 9 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

The triangular form of this insect (which is very

similar to that of M. elocata, Boh.) will at once separate

it from any of the species characterized in the present

paper.

Mesomphalia perjucunda.

Rotundata, leviter:convexa, obscure nigro-snea, sub-

nitida, pube cinerea vestita, subtus nitida, antennis nigris;

thorace longitudine fere duplo latiori, lateribus ante

medium oblique rotundato-ampliatis, deinde citius rotun-

datis, hinc ad basin rectis ; dorso medio convexo, utrinque

Oassidide. a

concavo, lateribus late reflexis ; disco impunctato, spar-

sissime cinereo-sericeo; elytris thorace fere triplo latiori-

bus, humeris vix prominulis, apice rotundatis, lateribus

pone humeros fere ad medium leviter rotundato-ampliatis,

hine ad apicem citius rotundato-angustatis, apice con-

junctim rotundatis ; disco leviter, ante medium citius con-

vexis, irregulariter elevato-reticulatis, reticulo nitido,

areolas sat magnas, disco externo vagas, opacas, puncta-

tas includente; margine laterali late explanato, plano,

fulvo, limbo, lineisque transversis 5, a margine externo

ad discum extensis, obscure nigro-zeneis.

Long. 7-8 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

The singularity of the markings on the elytra will at

once separate the beautiful insect from any hitherto

described species. The marginal bands radiate from

within outwards, and would (if produced inwardly) meet

nearly in the centre of the suture ; they are frequently

dilated, leaving only six narrow fulvous lines.

Mesomphalia emorsitans.

Anguste ovata, postice valde attenuata, convexa,

obscure nigro-znea, subnitida, pube adpressi sericea

sparse vestita; subtus magis nitida, antennis nigris;

thorace longitudine duplo latiori, lateribus ante medium

oblique ampliatis, deinde rotundatis, hinc ad basin rectis,

parallelis; disco foveolato, impunctato, sparsissime cinereo

sericeo ; elytris thorace multo latioribus, humeris antror-

sum leviter prominulis, apice rotundatis, lateribus pone

humeros fere ad medium ampliato-rotundatis, hine ad

apicem rotundato-angustatis, apice conjunctim subacutis ;

supra (presertim ante medium) convexis, basi obsolete

retusis, crebre et fortiter punctatis, disco ante medium

reticulato-rugosis; margine laterali modice ampliato,

vitté submarginali, postice angustaté, intus bis-emar-

ginata, vix infra basin ad apicem extensi, pallide fulva,

ornato.

Long. 84 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

Very similar in form and sculpture both of thorax and

elytra to M. blandifica, Boh., the elytra rather more

convex, less produced at the apex, and the shoulders

rather less distinct; although so differently coloured, it

is not unlikely to prove a variety of that species.

F2

68 Mr. J. S. Baly on

Mesomphalia latissima.

Rotundata, longitudine distincte latior, modice con-

vexa, obscure nigro-enea, subopaca, subtus magis

nitida, antennis nigris; thorace longitudine fere duplo

latiori, apice distincte emarginato, lateribus pone apicem

fere ad medium oblique rotundato-ampliatis, deinde

rotundatis, pone medium ad basin rectis, parallelis ; dorso

medio convexo, longitudinaliter canaliculato, utrinque

concavo, lateribus late reflexis; disco dense argenteo-

sericeo, lineis duabus, una longitudinali, altera transversa,

disci medio positis, crucis figuram formantibus glabris ;

elytris longitudine distincte latioribus, basi truncatis,

fere transversis, humeris late rotundatis, non prominulis,

lateribus pone humeros rotundatis, pone medium ad

apicem angustato-rotundatis, apice late rotundatis ; disco

modice convexis, pone basin citius elevatis, pube ad-

pressa cinerea sparsissime vestitis ; subcrebre sed tenuiter

punctatis, interstitiis levibus, prope suturam obsolete

elevato-reticulatis ; margine laterali latissimo, fere plano,

obsolete transversim strigoso, plag&i magnaé a basi ad

longe ultra medium producti, postice attenuata, ante

apicem desinente, rufo-testaced, ornato.

Long. 84, lat. 9 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

Very closely allied to WM. latevittata, Boh., and pos-

sibly only a variety of that species; differing principally

in its transverse form, and in the absence of the reticu-

lations, which in the former insect are spread over the disc

of the elytra; the nigro-zneous edge of the lateral mar-

gin of the elytron is also broader, and the rufo-testaceous

vitta terminates much sooner.

Mesomphalia consociata. —

Late rotundato-ovata, postice attenuata, leviter con-

vexa, nigro-znea, subnitida, pube subdepress4 cinered

sparse vestita, antennis nigris; thorace longitudine plus

duplo latiori, lateribus pone apicem ad longe ultra medium

oblique ampliatis, hinc ad basin rectis; dorso opaco,

pube sericea) depressd sparsissime adsperso, medio con-

vexo, utrinque concavo et ibi unifoveolato, lateribus late

reflexis; elytris thorace multo latioribus, a basi fere ad

medium rotundato-ampliatis, hine ad apicem rotundato-

Cassidide. 69

angustatis; dorso leviter convexis, basi citius elevatis ;

elevato-reticulatis, reticulo nitido, sat elevato, areolas

magnas opacas includente; margine laterali late expla-

nato, leviter deflexo, confertim punctato, vitta lati fere

a basi ad apicem extensa, superficiem fere amplectente,

ornato.

Long. 104 lin. .

Hab.—Bolivia.

This species stands very near to M. Saunders, Boh. ; it

is rather narrower, and more shining above ; the reticula-

tions on the elytra are stronger and more distinctly

raised from the surface of the disc; the dark nigro-

zneous border of the dilated margin of each elytron is

also much broader.

Mesomphalia peecilaspoides.

_ Ovato-subrotundata, postice paullo angustata, convexa,

subnitida, subtus nitida, obscure nigro-znea, antennis

nigris ; thorace longitudine duplo latiori, apice leviter

emarginato, lateribus pone apicem oblique ampliatis, vix

pone medium ad basin leviter rotundatis, parellelis,

angulis posticis subrectis, obtusis ; dorso medio convexo

nitido, hic illic leviter excavato, tenuiter et remote

punctato, utrinque concavo, lateribus late reflexis, crebre

rugoso strigosis ; elytris testaceis thorace multo latioribus,

humeris antrorsum yvix prominulis, apice rotundatis ;

lateribus pone humeros fere ad medium leviter ampliato-

rotundatis, hinc ad apicem rotundato-angustatis, apice

conjunctim subacute rotundatis; supra, convexis, basi

citius elevatis et ibi leviter excavatis, crebre et fortiter

punctatis, vittaé suturali infra basin paullo dilatata, et

utrinque maculis tribus disco positis nigris; margine

laterali late explanato, paullo deflexo, hmbo angusto,

apice subito dilatato, fasciisque duabus latis una basi,

altera prope medium positis, ad disci marginem extensis,

nigris.

Long. 6 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

This insect although having the facies of a Pecilaspis,

belongs undoubtedly (in my opinion) to the present

genus. The three black patches on the disc of each

elytron are arranged as follows: the first, placed on the

outer disc below the shoulder, is usually attached by a short

70 Mr. J. S. Baly on

branch to the inner extremity of the basal marginal

fascia; the second, on the inner disc near its middle, is

placed near the suture; whilst the third, situated on the

outer disc near the apical border of the elytron, is more

or less connected with the latter, by an irregular branch.

Omaspides bivittata.

Subrotundata, postice attenuata, paullo convexa,

nigro-znea, subopaca, subtus nitida, antennis nigris;

thorace semicirculari, lateribus apice rotundato-am-

platis, hinc ad basin oblique productis, disco opaco,

tenuiter longitudinaliter canaliculato; elytris obscure

zeneis, thorace multo latioribus, humeris non prominulis,

apice rotundatis, lateribus infra humeros fere ad medium

rotundato-ampliatis, hinc ad apicem rotundato-angustatis,

apice conjunctim acute rotundatis; disco elevato-reticu-

latis, reticulo nitido, disco externo pone medium san-

guineo, areolas parvas, punctatas, opacas includente ;

margine laterali late explanato, paullo deflexo, obsolete

et laxe reticulato, crebre punctato, vitta laté superficiem

fere amplectente, paullo ante apicem desinente, sanguinea,

ornato.

Long. 6 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

O. bivittata may be known at once from O. augusta,

Boh., the only species with which it might be confounded,

by the very oblique sides of the thorax, and by the much

coarser and more distinct reticulations covering the disc

of the elytra.

Omaspides abbreviata.

Rotundata, paullo-convexa, obscure eenea, nitida, an-

tennis nigris; thorace subtilissime punctato, dorso

tenuiter longitudinaliter canaliculato, medio ante basin

transversim foveolato ; elytris sat ampliatis, humeris non

prominulis, late rotundatis, lateribus pone humeros ad

medium rotundato-ampliatis, hinc ad apicem rotundato-

angustatis ; dorso subcrebre punctatis, margine laterali

late explanato; flavis, limbo exteriori, suturd, plaga

communi cruciformi, a basi fere ad medium extensa,

vittaque basali inter discum et marginem positd, longe

ante medium abbreviata, obscure zneis.

———

Oassidide. 71

Long. 6 ln.

Hab.—Kcuador.

Antennz scarcely longer than the head and thorax,

slightly increasing in thickness towards the apex ; thorax

nearly one-third broader than long, sides very oblique,

slightly sinuate near the middle. Very close to O. bistri-

gata, Boh.; the antennz shorter, the elytra less broadly

dilated, surface rather more strongly punctured on the

disc, the humeral angles less distinct, surface of dilated

margin more deflexed.

Batonota distincta.

Subtriangularis, apice rotundata, viridi-znea, supra

opaca, subtus nigra, nitida ; antennis nigris, basi fulvis ;

thorace longitudine plus duplo latiori, lateribus oblique

ampliatis, basi rotundatis, fere parallelis, dorso impunc-

tato, pube argenteo-sericed adpressd dense vestito ; elytris

thorace multo latioribus, humeris antrorsum valde pro-

ductis, apice acutis, extrorsum curvatis, dorso carina

diagonali divisis; lateribus ante medium fere parallelis,

pone medium ad apicem rotundato-angustatis, apice

conjunctim rotundatis; dorso convexis, sparse cinereo-

sericeis, basi retusis, deinde transversim gibbosis, sub-

fortiter punctatis, punctis prope suturam seriatim, prope

marginem, inordinatim dispositis ; interstitis duobus prope

suturam alteroque disci elevatis ; margine laterali tenuiter

punctato. Mas.

Elytrorum humeris antrorsum minus productis, apice

subacutis, extrorsum non curvatis;.lateribus pone hu-

meros ad apicem rotundato-angustatis, apicem versus

citius angustatis, apice conjunctim subacutis. Hem.

Long. 7 lin.

Hab.—Kcuador.

The male of this species may be at once known from

congeneric forms, by the strongly produced humeral

angles of the elytra ; and both sexes by the dense seri-

ceous pubescence clothing the disc of the thorax.

Batonota Jansont.

Triangularis, convexa, nigra, supra opaca, subtus nitida,

antennis nigris; thorace longitudine fere duplo latiori,

lateribus oblique rotundatis-ampliatis, basin versus citius

72 Mr. J. 8. Baly on Cassidide.

rotundatis; dorso medio carinato, pube tenui, adpressa,

cinerea, sparse vestito; elytris thorace multo latioribus,

humeris angulatis, antrorsum leviter productis, apice

acutis, dorso cariné diagonali divisis; lateribus pone

humeros rotundato-angustatis, apicem versus citius ro-

tundatis; dorso convexis, basi retusis, deinde transversim

gibbosis, fortiter subseriatim punctatis, interstitiis duo-

bus prope suturam alteroque disci carinatis; margine

laterali antice late, postice modice explanato ; obscure

viridi-zeneis aut nigro-eneis: macula parva irregulari

pone gibbum plagaque magné prope medium marginis

explanatis positis, ornatis.

Long. 64 lin.

Hab.—Chontales.

Collected by Mr. E. Janson, junr., after whom I have

named it. |

a

( 73 )

IV. Descriptions of new species of Lucanoid Coleoptera ;

with remarks on the genus Cantharolethrus, and

supplementary list. By Major F. J. 8. Parry,

F.L.S. (including descriptions by M. Snellen Van

Vollenhoven, and Prof. Westwood, M.A., F.L.S.).

(Read 5th February, 1872.]

Sphenognathus armatus, $ Parry, n. 8s. (var. max.).

Pl. I. fig. 3.

8. viridi-opacus metallicus, brunneo-tinctus, partim

nitente cupreo-viridis. Pedes concolores. Mandibulce

capite prothoraceque paulo breviores, robust, por-

rectz, leviter arcuate, granulose, apicibus curvatis ;

supra in medium elevatze, et prope basin denticulo sub-

erecto, instructz, interne fere ad apicem serrate. Caput

transversum, lateribus fere rectis; antice elevato-emargi-

natum, cum prothorace grosse et irregulariter punctatum,

angulis ante oculos acutis (antennee mutilate). Prothorax

transversus, convexus, lateribus subrotundatis, minute

crenulatis, angulis posticis obliquis, denticulo parvo

instructis; disco basi binodoso et prope angulos posticis

impressione profundo notato. Hlytra prothorace latiora,

elongata, convexis, fere parallela, sub lente minute granu-

losa, irregulariter vermiculata, prope scutellum glabra ;

angulis humeralis rotundatis; scutello subrotundato,

tenuiter punctulato. Pedes robusti, tibiis anticis intus et

extus, fortiter sed irregulariter armatis ; tibus, 4 posticis,

spinis acutis 8 vel 9 instructis; tarsis ciliatis. Corpus

subtus scutello regioque valde et longe fulvo- aut griseo-

pilosa. Mandibule intus pone apicem, caput, prothoracis

latera, femoraque subtus, pube fulva, longe, irregulariter

et obsolete, tectis.

Hab.—Colombia. Mus. Saunders.

Long. corp. lin. 15; lat. lin. 7; long. mandib. lin. 5.

This interesting new species, is allied both to 8. Lin-

denii and S. Feisthamelii, but its conspicuously greater

length and width, in comparison with all the other

species of the genus (S. Granti excepted), as well as its

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1872,—PARTI. (APRIL.)

74 Major F. J. 8. Parry on

other characters, renders it amply distinct. It differs from

S. Lindenii as follows :—The mandibles are more robust

and arcuate, considerably more elevated on the upper

surface; the prothorax much wider, with its punctuation

considerably stronger, the posterior angles more rounded ;

the elytra are wider at the base, consequently more

parallel. The character of the sculpture, especially near

the apex, is morestrongly vermiculate ; the legs consider-

ably more robust, with the denticulation of the tibie,

infinitely more pronounced than in any other species of

the genus with which I am at present acquainted. In

reference to S. Lindenit, the armature of the four

posterior tibiz is entirely wanting. The sparse and

irregular character of the pubescence exhibited on the

upper surface, in comparison with that existing under-

neath, may show, perhaps, only an abnormal condition,

caused by friction. The upper surface, when the insect

is in its normal state, may probably prove to be villose,

perhaps only on the prothorax and mandibles, a condi-

tion sometimes to be met with, but rarely, in other allied

species. I am indebted to W. Wilson Saunders, Esq. for

the opportunity of describing this new insect, as well as

others hereafter mentioned.

S. armatus (?), 2 (an sp. nov. ?).

S. nigro-castaneus, obscure eneo-tinctus. Mandibule

curt, robuste, granulose, extus prope basin rotun-

date, intus excavate, denticulate. Caput quadratum,

antice elevato-binodosum, ante oculos tuberculo parvo in-

structum, cum prothorace rude et irregulariter punctatum.

Prothoraz transversus, subconvexus, lateribus minute

crenatis, in medio longitudinaliter canaliculatus; angulis .

anticis rotundatis, posticis paullo emarginatis, acutis.

filytra prothorace latiora, convexa, parallela, confertim

granuloso-subvermiculata, circa scutellum glabra, minute

punctulata; angulo humerali rotundato. Scutellum semi-

circulare, punctulatum. Pedes robusti, rugoso punctati ;

ciliati; tibiis anticis et intermediis, spinis quatuor, posticis

tribus, armatis. Corpus subtus sparsim et irregulariter

pilosum.

Long. corp. lin. 9.

Hab.—Bogota. Mus. Parry.

Lucanoid Coleoptera. 75

The insect now noticed differs so perceptibly from all

other females of the species belonging to the genus, that

I have no hesitation in recording it as being distinct,

and I am much inclined to assume the probability of its

eventually proving to be the ¢ of S. armatus ; this con-

jecture must not, however, be taken as a definite conclu-

sion. It assimilates with S. armatus, ¢, in having the

same convex and parallel formed elytra, together with

the vermiculate sculpture exhibited on their upper

surface, although somewhat closer and strongly defined,

this latter character may, however, be only sexual; it

has, further, the same robust similarity in the appearance

of the legs, as well as in the strongly armed tibie; this

last chararcter, as previously stated, in respect to S.

armatus, g, is certainly not to be met with in the females

of any other allied species. Withregard to the coloration:

in the male it is characteristic as being ‘‘ eneus, brunneo-

tinctus ;”? whilst in the female it is noted as ‘‘ brunneus,

eeneo-tinctus ;” such variety of character is often exhibited

in the females of other allied species. The legs of both

insects are unicolorous, whilst the tibiz of nearly all the

other allied species have been described by the several

authors as being of a light reddish-brown. With refer-

ence to the villose texture which is exhibited so strongly

underneath, and, somewhat sparsely, on the upper surface

of S. armatus, 3, in the female insect there exists only

considerable marks of such pubescence underneath, and,

on the upper surface, traces only of this character are to

be found at the exterior base of the mandibles, on the

anterior margin of the prothorax, round the eyes, and

also in the space between the base of the elytra and pro-

thorax; in reference, however, to the last character

alluded to, the insect may not, I apprehend, be in its

normal condition. In conclusion, it may, I think, never-

theless be affirmed, that if the insect in question is not

sexually related to S. armatus, 3, it must be regarded

as the female of another species, the male of which is at

present unknown.

Genus CANTHAROLETHRUS, Thomson, Ann. Soc. Ent.

Fr. 1862, p. 411.

Sp. 1. C. Luaerii, ¢, Buquet, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr.

1843, Bulletin, p. li. (Doreus), Colombia; CO. Luaerii, 3g,

Parry, Cat. pl. IX. fig. 6; OC. Georgius, ¢, Thomson,

loc. cit., Colombia.

76 Major F. J. S. Parry on

(?) Sp. 2. C. Reichii, 9, Hope, Trans. Ent. Soc. ser.

i. vol. LV. p. 182, pl. 13, fig. 3 (Pholidotus), Colombia ;

C. Reichii, &, Thomson, loc. cit.

Sp. 3. C. Buckleyi, 3 ?,n.sp., Ecuador.

The type specimen ( ¢) from which both M. Buquet and

Mr. Thomson described their remarkable and interesting

species of Lucanoid Coleoptera was, up to a very recent

period, unique in Count Mniszech’s collection ; three or four

specimens, however (males), were received by Mr. Janson

from N. Granada during the past year, but, unfortunately,

no female was contained in the collection. These specimens

have been distributed in the collection of the British

Museum, of Mr. W. Wilson Saunders, and in my own.

M. Buquet’s description of O. Luzeri is given entirely in

French ; Mr. Thomson’s characters, both of the genus

and the species, in Latin, are in ewtenso. A second

species of the genus, also recorded by Mr. Thomson in

the same publication, was founded upon an insect origin-

ally described in the Transactions of our Society by the late

Rey. F. W. Hope, under the name of Pholidotus Reichit,

?;1it was located by Mr. Hope, but with some hesita-

tion, in the genus Pholidotus. Mr. Thomson, in his

publication, inclines to the opinion that Pholidotus Reichit,

Hope, is identical with the insect he describes under the

name of Cantharolethrus Georgius ; the probability as to

the former insect being the female of the latter (or

perhaps of another closely allied species) , was also alluded

to in my Catalogue of the Lucanoid Coleoptera (vide Tr.

Ent. Soc., 1870). The question as to the sexual affinity

between the two insects may now, I further apprehend,

be definitively settled; as the female of another species

assimilating closely to OC. Reichit has recently been dis-

covered by C. Buckley, Esq., during his recent travels

in the States of Ecuador. It was taken, together with

several male specimens, in the interior of some rotten

wood ; a description of this new species is now added

under the name of CO. Buckleyi. Mr. Thomson ap-

pears to be in error in stating that a specimen of OC.

Reich is to be found in the Hopeian Cabinet ; hitherto

this insect has, I believe, remained unique in his own

collection, having been obtained from that of the Marquis

de la Ferté, and is, probably, the identical specimen from

which Mr. Hope’s description and figure were taken.

For the sake of comparison, in respect to certain differen-

Lucanoid Coleoptera. TE

tial characters existing between C. Luaerii and O. Buck-

leyi, extracts from the descriptions given by Mons.

Buquet and Mr. Thomson are quoted. Mons. Buquet

_ says :—

“The mandibles are one-third longer than the head

and prothorax together, wide and flat upon their upper

surface, bifurcate at their extremity, emarginate and

armed with a strong tooth close to the apical termination ;

antenne the length of the mandibles, the joints being

flattened from the second, the sixth joint being consider-

ably more dilated, the four last jomts, which form the

clava, being short. Prothorax convex, narrow in front,

broad at the base, finely punctured above, and rugose

underneath; the posterior angles deeply emarginate,

forming a very acute angle. JHlytra oval, elongate,

rounded at the extremity as well as at the humeral angles.

Mr. Thomson’s description of C. Georgius is as follows:

“ Mandibule elytris longiores, subrectz, valide, singulz

post medium intus dente sat valido armatz, versus apicem

extus abrupta, truncate, apiceque valde bifid ; antenne

elongate, mandibulis longiores, 10-articulatee, scaphus

prothorace longior, articulis 3, 4, 5, 6 gradatim decres-

centibus, clava 4-articulato; prothorax subtrapezoidalis,

ad angulos laterales posticos latiori illos productos acutos ;

capite vix longior, marginibus anticis posticisque

sinuatis. Hlytra oblonga ad humeros latiora, margine

paulo reflexo, apice rotundata.”

This description of the insect appears in the main to

correspond with that of Mons. Buquet, with the exception

that the author does not allude in any way to the

humeral angles of the elytra, which Mons. Buquet states

to be rounded.

C. Buckleyi, n. sp. 3, Parry (var. max.). Pl. I. fig. 1.

C. niger, nitidissimus, glaberrimus. Mandibule elytris

breviores, robust, arcuate, fere cylindrice, punctate,

intus prope basin binodose; apicibus bifurcatis, tus

post medium emarginatis dente, acuto armatis. Caput

magnum, punctatum, antice fortiter emarginatum ; an gulis

ante oculos productis; disco triangulariter excavato ;

clypeo parvo, binodoso. Antenne elongate, mandibulis

78 Major F. J. 8. Parry on

longiores ; articulis cylindricibus. Prothoraw transversus,

supra sparsim, infra fortiter et rugose, punctatus ; lateribus

productis, rotundatis, minute crenatis, angulis posticis,

emarginatis, tuberculo acuto instructis ; in medio leviter

longitudinaliterque canaliculatus. Hlytra glabra; lateri-

busirregulariter indentatis ; linea marginali paulo reflexa ;

angulis humeralis spina obtusa instructis. Scutellwm sub-

rotundatum, in medio punctulatum. Pedes punctati;

tibiis anticis prope apices spinis 3 vel 4, minutis, armatis,

intermediis posticisque simplicibus.

Long. corp. unc. 1, lin. 2; long. mandib. lin. 5.

Hab.—Kcuador, Amer. merid. Muss. Brit. et Parry.

There is indubitably a very strong facial appearance of

great similarity between the two insects in question, but

the following differences are, I think, quite sufficient to

prove their non-identity. The general appearance of

C. Buckleyi, 3,18 somewhat more shining, the mandibles

are shorter and more robust, broader at the base, being

also more arcuate; the joints of the antenne, between

the funiculis and the clava, are cylindriform, instead of

flat, as in O. Luwerii ; they are also longer, consequently

the scapus is visibly more elongate, the dilatation at the

extremity of the sixth joint is not quite so pronounced,

the seventh or basal joint of the clava (which, according

to the author, is composed of four joints) is considerably

longer. The clypeus in OC. Buckleyi is, moreover, bino-

dose at the extremity, whilst in the allied species it is

simple. The head is much broader, more excavated in

front, with the anterior part more emarginate. The

prothorax is of a totally different form, being prominently

wider, and rounded at the sides, with the posterior angles

considerably less acute; and, finally, the elytra are

slightly longer, with the humeral angles acute instead of

being rounded.

C. Buckleyi, 9. PI. I. fig. 2.

C. niger. Mandibule parve, rugose. Caput fere

quadratum fortiter rugoso-punctatum, angulis ante oculos

rotundatis. Prothoraz transversus, valde varioloso-punc-

tatus, disco in medio et prope lateribus, longitudinali-

terque, lineis rugosis, elevatis, irregulariter, instructus ;

lateribus serratis, angulis anticis prominulis cum posticis

Lucanoid Coleoptera. 79

emarginatis, spina acuta instructis. Antenne capite

mandibulisque paulo longiores; articulis cylindricis.

Elytra elongata, disco subvelutinoso-opaco ; linea sinuata

utrinque, elevata et obsolete punctata, e spina humerali

fere ad medium descendente notata. Scutellum parvum,

grosse punctulatum, nitidum; angulis humeralis spina

acuta instructis; linea suturali, glabra, nitida. Corpus

infra nigrum ; pectore fortiter varioloso-punctato. Pedes

punctati; tibiis omnino simplicibus.

Long. prothoracis cum cap. et mand. lin. 5. Elytr.

lin. 6

Hab.—Kcuador. Mus. Parry.

Not being in a position to avail myself of a comparison

between the two insects, viz., C. Reichii and C. Buckleyi,

it is impossible to point out the special differences which

I have no doubt exist in the females, as well as in the

males of the respéctive species, as already alluded to.

The only difference I have detected from reading Mr.

Thomson’s description of CO. Reichii, ¢, is, that with

reference to the elytra, the author says, “ hwmeris pro-

minulis, rotundatis,’ whilst in OC. Buckleyi, 9, the

humeral angle is acute, and furnished with a spine; this

same difference has been pointed out as existing in the

males of the two species.

In Mr. Hope’s description of C. Reichii, the rich

opaque velvet appearance exhibited in the elytra is not

alluded to, neither is there any notice as to the character

of the humeral angle: the author describes the length of

the insect as being 15 lin., whilst the length of

C. Buckleyi, is only 11 lin. Mr. Thomson gives the

length of C. Reichii as 30 mill., being considerably in

excess of C. Reichii, Hope. The insects now described,

were found, as previously stated, by Mr. Buckley, at the

same time, and in the same position (the interior of

rotten wood), thus proving, as far as possible, their

conjugal affinity ; only one specimen of the female was

obtained. These interesting insects formed part of

a large and rich collection of Coleoptera that Mr. Buckley

has brought back from his recent scientific expedition

to Ecuador. His safe return will, I am sure, be hailed

with much satisfaction by the members of the Entomo-

logical Society.

80. Major F. J. 8. Parry on

Leptinopterus affinis, 3, Parry, n.s. (var. max. : 2 ignota) .

Pistig. 3.

Affinis I. V-niger, nigro-piceus. Mandibule capite

prothoraceque paullo longiores, deplanate, irregulariter

arcuate, intus tuberculis parvis quatuor, pone apicem

processuque bifido, instructee. Caput prothorace paullo

angustius, antice emarginatum, ante oculos fortiter angula-

tum ; lateribus fere rectis. Prothorax bifoveatus; in medio

longitudinaliter leviterque canaliculatus; scutello ciliato.

Hlytra testacea, prope scutellum plaga triangulari notata ;

angulis humeralis tuberculo parvo instructis. Pedes in-

ermi; femoribus in medio rubro-maculatis.

Long. corp. lin. 7 ; mandib. lin. 3.

Hab.—In Brasilia merid. apud fluvium Paranam.

There is great affinity between this insect and LD. V-

niger, Hope (triangularis, Burm.); but after comparing

it with several specimens of the latter species, I find the

following marked differences between the two; the man-

dibles are not regularly arcuate, becoming abruptly in-

curved, near the apex; the prominent subapical bifid tooth

I have in no case met with in specimens of L. V-niger ;

moreover, the mandibles are, internally, considerably

more emarginate near the apex. The two fovee, exhibited

on the disc of the prothorax, are also peculiar to this species

(unless they may ultimately prove to be abnormal). The

triangular plaga on the elytra is considerably smaller,

originating at a very slight distance only from the scu-

tellum, whereas, in the former, it proceeds almost from

the humeral angle ; the punctuation of the elytra is also

scattered and sparse, whereas, in V-niger it is lineo-

punctate; the legs, moreover, are entirely black, with

the exception of the femora being rufous in the centre,

whilst in L. V-niger the legs are constantly red. This

species belongs to the second section of the genus, having

the armature of the mandibles symmetrically placed on

each side.

Leptinopterus Paranensis, 3, Parry, n. s. (var. max.:

? ignota). Pl. I. fig. 4.

L. niger, opacus, sub lente minute punctulatus. Man-

dibule graciles, leviter arcuate, fere cylindricw, intus.

excavate, tuberculo obtuso prope basin, spina minima

Lucanoid Ovleoptera. 81

ante medium, dentibusque duobus subapicalibus, in-

structee. Caput quadratum, margine antico emarginato,

angulis ante oculos obliquis. Prothorax transversus,

augulis posticis emarginatis, vix tuberculatis. Hlytra

brevia, prothorace angustiora, angulo humerali spina

minuta instructo. Pedes nigri; tibiis anticis spinis tribus

prope apices armatis, 4 posticis inermibus; tarsis ciliatis.

Long. corp. lin. 7; mandib. lin. 3. Mus. Saunders.

Hab.—In Brasilia merid. apud fluvium Paranam.

The slender cylindriform mandibles, the short and

narrow elytra, together with the entire absence of golden

pubescence on the scutellum, and on the anterior margin

of the prothorax, readily characterize this insect as being

distinct from any other allied species of the genus which

has at present fallen under my notice; it is to be located

in the second section of the genus.

I have been requested by Mons. Snellen van Vollen-

hoven, of Leyden, to submit to the Society upon the

present occasion, the description (accompanied by a

figure) of a new and interesting species belonging to the

genus Prosopocoilus. The insect in question is peculiarly

remarkable, as being the only one belonging to the

genus in which the coloration is found to be eneous.

Prosopocoilus Rosenbergii, Vollenh., n. s. Pl. II. fig. 1.

«P. eneus, nitidissimus, latus; capite magno, impunc-

tato ; mandibulis forcipiformibus, intus serratis, apice

dentibus tribus divaricatis desinantibus ; dentibus illis,

antennis, palpis et tarsis, nigris.”

“‘ Long. lin. 28.”

“* Hab.—Java, interior (?).”

“‘ Body above and beneath, of a coppery-brass colour,

large and stout of dimension. Head broad, depressed,

deeply emarginate in front, not punctate, but of the

same colour as the thorax and elytra. Mandibles some-

what shaped like those of Pros. forceps, Voll., but elevated

towards their ends, concave at the outer side, with a

small interior tooth at the base, and four or five at the

end of the inner ridge; the apex of each mandible is

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1872.—PARTI. (APRIL.) G

82 Major F. J. S. Parry on

divided into three larger teeth, which are deeper in

colour, as also are the labrum and the sides of the head.

The palpi shining black. Eyes chestnut colour, the

canthus in front ending in a black knob where the pos-

terior canthus terminates, so that it is difficult to distin-

guish even with a good glass, whether the canthus is

entire or not. Prothorax broader than either head or

elytra, shining, but punctate on the anterior part,

- very convex in the centre, the lateral tooth subacute.

Scutellum with a golden tinge, edged with black, with

some few scattered punctures. LHlytra shining, mi-

nutely punctate, with a single short row of somewhat

greater punctures, all the edges blackish. There is a

small longitudinal black impression in the middle of the

underside of the metathorax. Legs stout; all the tibie

with scattered punctures, out of which arise short golden

hairs. Tarsi and claws shining black.”

“‘The only specimen of this magnificent species was

brought to Europe by Baron Von Rosenberg, who ob-

tained it at Java, where it was found in the Botanical

Garden of Buitenzorg. There is some doubt as to its

being a Javanese insect, and it seems rather probable

that it was imported from Siam, since a great number of

trees and plants had been brought, in the preceding

year, from that country to the botanical garden.”

Prof. Westwood has favoured me with the followin

description.

Ceratognathus rufipennis, Westwood, n.sp. Pl. II. fig. 2.

“C. niger, nitidus; capite rugoso, in medio verticis

tuberculo transverso, bipartito, notato ; mandibulis capitis

longitudine, supra parum subangulatis, haud auriculatis,

apice bifido; prothorace cicatricoso-punctato, spatiis non-

nullis discoidalibus lineaque mediana postica leevibus ;

elytris rufis, rugoso-punctatissimis, singlo 4 costatis

costis 2° et 4° e sutura magis elevatis, ante apicem desi-

nentibus; pedibus sat gracilibus, tibiis anticis bidentatis,

posticis emarginato-incisis ; corpore infra nigro, nitido,

cum mandibulis et femoribus punctatis, serie punctorum

majorem prope marginem posticum segmentorum abdo-

minis, notato.””

** Long. corp. lin. 43.”

“Hab,—Albany, King George’s Sound (Brewer). In

Mus. Saunders.”

Iucanoid Coleoptera. 83

I avail myself of the present occasion to notify the

following numerical rectifications found to be requisite

since the publication of my Catalogue of the Lucanoid

Coleoptera in 1870 (Vide Tr. Ent. Soc. 1870, pp. 104-116).

ee ee eee

Cole gt tS

CO OT aL ee ASRS dt

NEW SPECIES.

. Sphenognathus armatus, g 2, Parry, ante p. 33. Mus. Saunders, Z ;

mus. Parry 2.

Lucanus, 2, inedit Formosa. Mus. Parry.

Rhetulus crenatus, ¢, Westwood, Tr. Env. Soc. 1871, p. 353. Mus. ©

Parry

Pea oniliss Rosenbergit, $, Voll., ante p. 81. Mus. Leyden.

Cyclommatus, 2, inedit, Borneo bor. Mus. Parry.

Cantharolethrus Buckleyi, 6 2, Parry, ante pp.77,78. Mus. Parry.

Leptinopterus afinis, g, Parry, ante p. 80. Mus. Saunders.

Leptinopterus Paranensis, g, Parry, ante p. 80. Mus. Saunders.

Doreus sutwralis, g, Westwood, Tr. Ent. Soc. 1871, p. 358. Mus:

Parry.

Doreus raticionativus, g, Westwood, Tr. Ent. Soc. 1871, p. 356,

Mus. Parry.

Dorcus glabripennis, , Westwood, Tr. Ent. Soc., 1871, p. 359. Mus.

Parry.

Apterocyclus Honoluluensis, ¢ 9, Waterhouse, Tr. Ent. Soc. 1871,

p- 315. Maus. Brit.

Ceratognathus rufipennis, g, Westwood, ante p.82. Mus. Saunders.

The following species were inserted in the Catalogue

under MS. names; descriptions have since been pub-

lished.

1. Lissotes Launcestoni, g, Westwood, Trans. Ent. Soe. 1871, p. 365.

2. L. latidens, g, West., loc. cit., p. 363.

3. L. subcrenatus, 2, West., loc. cit., p. 368.

4. L.furcicornis, ¢ 2, West., loc. cit., p. 362.

5. L. foreipula, 3, West., loc. cit., p. 366.

Species recorded as wanting to my Collection in 1870,

but since added.

sige SF eco he i>

Colophon Thunbergit, Westwood.

Odontolabis Burmeisteri, Hope.

Odont. striatus, Deyrolle.

Cantharolethrus Luzxerii, Buquet.

Platycerus cerulescens, Leconte.

Nigidius Parryi, Bates.

Nigidius Formosanus, Bates.

Number of species recorded in 1870 357

Number added in 1871-2 . . .. 18

LUO as Ea SiO

Pause barey oe) 6 a eu etsy. CUE

Desiderata . . 68

G 2

84 Major F. J. 8. Parry on Lucanoid Coleoptera.

Hexplanation of the Plates.

Puate I.

Cantharolethrus Buckleyi, Parry, 3.

C. Buckleyi, Parry, 2.

Sphenognathus armatus, Parry, 3.

Leptinopterus Paranensis, Parry, 3.

L. afinis, Parry, 3g.

Head of Odontolabis Stevensii, Thomson, 2, exhibiting singeu-

lar malformation of the antenne.

PAP Php

Puate If.

Fig. 1. Prosopocoilus Rosenbergii, v. Voll., g; 1a, b, apex of mandibles ;

Ic, side of head; 1d, antenna.

2. Ceratognathus rufipennis, Westw., ¢; 2a, maxilla and palpus ;

2b, labium and palpi.

—--

( 85 )

V. Descriptions of some new Papilionide. By J. O.

Westwoop, M.A., F.L.S., Pres. Ent. Soc.

[Read 3rd July and 4th December, 1871.)

Tue vast additions which have, within the last twenty

years, been made to our Entomological Collections from

almost all parts of the world, and the more careful indica-

tion of the localities of individuals from adjoining districts,

have not only resulted in the description of great numbers

of distinct species, but have also made us acquainted with

numbers of locally distinct races, or geographical varieties,

or sub-species, as they have been variously termed, the

study of which, especially as regards the manner in which

the variation in the different individuals or races may

have been effected, if at all, and especially what may be

the value of the characters which are thus seen to vary, is

still quite in its infancy.

In the Paper which I now present to the Society, I

have described several Butterflies belonging to the great

genus Papilio, some of which seem quite distinct from

all the already described species; whilst others may

possibly be regarded as permanent local varieties. To

the latter, in the present state of the science of Entomo-

logy, it will, I think, be desirable to assign names, but, in

accordance with a plan, which I have elsewhere adopted,

I have given them names which at once indicate their

apparent connexion with the species to which, in a wide

sense, they appear to belong. I have also taken some

pains to indicate the manner in which the variations

in the different species occurs. The older writers, of

course, did not hesitate to consider the sub-species as

identical with the type; hence we find Fabricius writing

the MS. name of “ Papilio Idea, var. 8” as the identifica-

tion of a drawing of Hestia Leuconoe, of Hrichson, in the

volume of Jones’s ‘Icones’ containing the Papiliones

Danai, three-quarters of a century before it was described

by Erichson ; and many other instances might be quoted, in

which both Linnezus and Fabricius described, under the

same name, individuals now regarded even as more dis-

tinct than geographical sub-species or varieties.

The careful investigation, indeed, in all its bearings, of

these wild local varieties (assuming them to be such)

seems to me to be likely to afford more important data

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—PparT U. (MAY.) H

86 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

in the solution of the question of the evolution of natural

objects, than whole volumes of details of experiments

made upon domesticated, or semi-domesticated animals,

which appear, from their very nature and position in the

general scheme of the economy of the Creation, to have

been endowed with a great degree of plasticity, to fit

them for the changes of existence to which man would

subject them.

If we look at most of the insects described below, and

indeed at many of those which have lately been described

by our leading Lepidopterists, we find these local varieties

distinguished by some modification in the size or position

of the markings of the wings; or, very rarely indeed, by

some actual variation in form. If, indeed, we possessed

a knowledge of their transformations, we might be better

able to judge of the proper weight to be accorded to

such variations; but it is hard to understand how the

fact of a butterfly transferring its location a certain

number of miles, should be attended with an alteration

in its markings which can in no wise affect its means of

living.* It is not difficult to suppose that a change of

locality, attended possibly with a supply of food of a

more or less nourishing quality, might effect an altera-

tion in the size of the specimen, but that it should result

in a few, more or less, of the scales in the wings being

differently sculptured, thereby producing a correspond-

ing difference of colour, is not so intelligible; experiments

as to the capability of these local varieties breeding to-

gether would be very decisive, but in the present state

of science, it seems quite impossible to determine the

limits of these varying species, and we, consequently,

have the same author in one place regarding each sub-

species as distinct, and in other cases giving them under

one specific name; thus, in the last Catalogue of the

‘ Diurnal Lepidoptera,’ recently published, Mr. Kirby

gives all the sub-species of the Priamus group as varieties

of Orn. Priamus, whilst those of the Paris and Helena

groups are treated as distinct species.

Papilio Buddha, nov. sp. Pl. III. fig. 1.

P. alis nigris basi viridi-atomosis, fascia lata communi

ceerulea vel aureo-viridi (secundum situm) ad costam pos-

* These observations were written some months before the appearance

of Mr. W. H. Edwards’s memoir on Papilio Ajaw, in which two supposed

sub-species have been satisfactorily shown to be seasonal variations, such

as are well known to occur in some of our English moths.

Papilionide. 87

ticarum haud extensa, posticis macula lunata in angulo

externo costz lunulaque parva ad angulum analem luteis,

lunulis 4 subapicalibus, fere indistinctis, viridi-atomosis.

Expans. alar. unc. 33.

Hab.—— ? In Muss. Hewitson et Druce.

This fine insect belongs to the Palinwrus group, and

is closely allied to P. Brama and Dedalus, but is distin-

guished by its larger size, and by the great extent of the

fascia in the hind-wings; in the fore-wings this gradually

widens from the costa to the inner margin, where it is

half an inch in breadth; its margin towards the base

of the wing is nearly straight, but on the side next the

apical margin it is more scalloped between the veins ;

it extends exactly to the extremity of the discoidal cell

between the two discocellular veins, but beyond the cell

between the upper of these veins and the fore-margin ;

in the hind-wings, it forms a large oval patch, occupying

the whole central disc of the wing, gradually shaded off

behind, and not reaching to the costa, but extends up-

wards along the anal margin, and covers portion of the

discoidal cell; the basal portion of all the wings is

thickly powdered with golden green scales, the apical

portion of the fore-wings being much more strongly

irrorated with them; near the outer angle of the hind-

wings, is a fulvous broadly lunate spot, and a smaller

and narrower one near the anal angle; the tail is not

powdered with scales; between the large discoidal spot,

and the hinder margin of the hind-wings, is a series

of four very obscure lunules formed of a few green scales,

and there are a few fulvous scales in the space next the

outer angle. The wings below are brown, the whole of

the dark portion which extends to beyond the middle of

the wings being thickly irrorated with luteous scales,

which are thickest on the inner portion of the basal part

of the fore-wings, and the basal portion of the hind-wings

(extending to about the extremity of the abdomen) in

which parts the ground-colour is paler brown ; a very

pale buff-brown fascia on the fore-wings commences at a

greater distance from the end of the discoidal cell than

the extremity of the blue-green fascia reaches on the

upper side of the fore-wings, and is traversed by the

black veins and the brown intermediate longitudinal

folds. The apical margin is brown, gradually narrowing

from the apex to the inner angle of the fore-wings. On

H 2

88 Prof, J. O. Westwood on

the hind-wings the bar beyond the dark portion is of a

more fleshy-brown colour, the apical margin darker, and

with a row of black, fulvous, and silvery lunules, of which

the interior forms a bilunate ocellus at the anal angle.

Of the species with a green fascia across all the wings,

of which Papilio Crino may be considered as the type,

we find that species and P. Blumei distinguished by

having the tails of the hind-wings more or less irrorated

with metallic blue or green scales, the band in P. Crino

running across the wings entirely beyond the discoidal

cell, whilst in P. Blumei it is so much advanced towards

the base, that it does not at all, in the fore-wings, and

only slightly in the hind-wings, extend beyond the cell.

As regards the nomenclature and specific identification

of the two Fabrician species with a green fascia across

all the wings, but having no spots on the tails, we fortu-

nately possess satisfactory materials in this country.

Papilio Crino, Fabr.

This was described by Fabricius from the collection of

Drury, with an erroneous locality, Africa, but with a

reference to Jones’s ‘Icones,’ V. I. pl. 53. Donovan,

who figures the species in his ‘insects of China,’ states

that he does so on the authority of Drury’s collection,

and Boisduval states that he received it from Cochin

China. Jones’s drawings do not give any locality, but

the fascia not extending either in fore or hind-wings

into the discoidal cells, and the green spot close to the

tip of the tails of the hind-wings, at once separate this

species from all it allies. There are two males of P.

Crino in the British Museum, in which there is a very

small patch of green scales at the lower extremity of the

discoidal cell of the fore-wings. These are wanting in

the specimen in the Hopeian collection, and in others

which I have seen, especially in specimens in the collec-

tion of the Rev. E. Savory, from Ceylon, some of which,

males, have the first and second branches of the median

vein clothed with a narrow stripe of brown hairs (more

slender on the second branch), whilst these branches are

quite naked in other male specimens. According to

Dr. Felder (Catal. Pap. pp. 34, 82), these naked indivi-

duals are from the mountainous part of Ceylon, and he

has accordingly applied to them the specific name of P.

montanus, adding that the mountain individuals have the

fascia in the hind-wings, especially of the females, broader

and more brightly coloured than the littoral specimens.

Papilionide. 89

Papilio Palinurus, Fabr.

P. Palinurus was described by Fabricius (Mantissa,

p- 2) from the collection of Lund, as a native of Tranque-

bar. Fortunately, Sir Joseph Banks also possessed the

same species from Tranquebar, and in Mr. Jones’s

drawings it is represented from the Banksian specimen

from that country, which is still preserved in the British

Museum. The fascia of the fore-wings is rather narrow,

and of nearly equal width, where it crosses the branches

of the median vein; it is narrowed where it crosses the

end of the discoidal cell, extending a short distance

beyond it; the fascia of the hind-wings is transverse,

narrowly ovate, reaching close to the anal margin of the

wing, and resting on the top of the anal ocellus.

In the ‘Revue Zoologique’ for 1840, M. Guérin-

Méneville separated, under the name of P. Brama, the

specimens from the ‘“‘ céte malaye,” having the “ bande

des ailes supérieures large, passant sur l’extrémité de la

cellule discoidale et étant coupée en deux parties égales par

cette extrémité,” whilst he retains the specific name of

P. Palinurus for those which have the “ bande tres large,

passant en delans de Vextrémité de la cellule discoidale

et touchant seulement cette extrémité,”’” and which have

a broad central dark fascia, nearly destitute of pale scales

in the hind-wings beneath.

In the figures of the two sexes of P. Brama, the

male is represented with a much broader fascia in

the fore-wings, whilst in the hind-wings it is broadly

ovate, extending considerably within the discoidal cell,

which is not the case with the figure of the female.

In Mr. Hewitson’s collection are three apparently dis-

tinct forms of these insects :—

1. The fascia on the fore-wings has the posterior half

of nearly equal breadth, and it is here extended so much

towards the hinder angle of the wings, that its inner

margin, when it touches the posterior edge of the wing,

is nearly ten lines distant from the body, and on the

hind-wings the fascia is very transverse and narrowed,

conical in its form, not quite extending to the anal mar-

gin considerably above the ocellus at the anal angle.

This appears to me to represent the typical P. Palinurus,

and such specimens of P. Brama, of Guérin-Méneville

(pl. I. f. 4) as he considered to be the females.

90 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

2. With the fascia on the fore-wings gradually widen-

ing to the hind-wargin; it is more oblique, so that its

inner edge, where it joins the posterior margin of the

wing, is not more than half-an-inch from the thorax, In

the hind-wings the fascia is very broad and ovate,

extending to, and along, the anal margin, from opposite

the extremity of the abdomen nearly to the fulvous

lunule of the ocellus at the anal angle. There is a brilliant

coloured specimen of this variety from South India, in

the British Museum. This, according to M. Guérin’s

views, ought to be considered as the male of P. Pali-

nurus (Brama, Guér.). I have not had an opportunity

of carefully exanining the sexual organs of these butter-

flies, and if it should be ascertained that the specimens

with the broad fascia of the hind-wings are not exclu-

sively of one sex, it will be necessary to give a distinct

name to this No. 2. é

3. (P. Dedalus.) The fascia of the fore-wings is

here also gradually widened to the hind-margin, and is

more transverse, its inner edge, where it reaches the

posterior margin of the wing, being nearly three-fourths

of an inch distant from the body, and the fascia in the hind-

wing is more oblique, conical in form, and extending at

its extremity next the body, only to the inner upper

angle of the anal ocellus. This agrees with Guérin’s

figure (pl. I. fig. 2), of P. Palinurus.

It appears to me evident from these descriptions, that

M. Guérin-Méneville has misapplied these specific names ;

that his P. Brama is identical with the P. Palinurus of

De Haan (pl. 7, f.3) and with P. Regulus of Stoll.; whilst

his P. Palinurus, with the green bar not extending beyond

the cell of the fore-wings, and with the dark fascia on

the underside of the hind-wings, is identical with P.

Deedalus, of Felder.

Papilio noctula, nov. sp. Pl. IV. fig. 3.

P. alis maris nigro-cyaneis, posticis et dimidio postico

anticarum purpureo-nitidis ; anticis latis, posticis parvis,

mediocriter sinuatis; palpis, collo et thoracis lateribus,

subtus rufo-notatis.

Expans. alar. antic maris unc. 43.

Habitat in Borneo. Mas in Muss. Oxon., Hewitson,

Druce.

Papilionde. 91

- This species belongs to the group of which P. Nox

is the type, and I should probably not have erred

in uniting as sexes of the same species, the male in-

sects above described under the name of P. Noctula

from Borneo, remarkable for the large size of the fore-

wings, glossed with rich raven-purple on the upper

side; and the fine female specimens described below,

under the name of P. Strix, also from Borneo, in the

collection of Mr. Hewitson.

As, however, we possess no certain information as to the

specific identity of these two insects, and as it may prove,

ultimately, that P. Noctula may be the male form of P.

Hrebus of Wallace, also from Borneo and Malacca, the

hind-wings of the females of which are glossed with steel-

blue, of which there is no trace in P. Striz, I have

thought it best, provisionally, to describe the two sexes

as distinct. If P. Strix should ultimately be found to be

the genuine partner of P. Noctula, the latter name, in

accordance with the established usage for retaining the

name given to the males must be employed, and that of

P. Striz abandoned.

For the purpose of comparison with the only known

males of this group hitherto described, namely, that of

P. Noctis, of Hewitson, also published as such from Borneo,

by Mr. Wallace, in the Trans. Linn. Soc. (XXV. PI.

V. f. 1), I have given a careful outline of the typical

specimen of this male now in Mr. Hewitson’s collection

on pl. IV. fig. 2, from which it will be at once seen that,

although having much more rounded and broader fore-

wings than the male of P. Nox (of which a figure is now,

for the first time, represented on pl. IV. fig. 1, also from

the collection of Mr. Hewitson, from Java, formerly in

coll. Wallace, and in the British Museum, from Pulo

Penang). The male of P. Noctula has still larger and

broader fore-wings, whilst the hind-wings are more

shghtly sinuated on the hind-margin than in P. Now,

male, but more decidedly so than in P. Noctis, male.

The three males are also well distinguished by the

colour of their wings, that of P. Nox being black with a

slight brownish tinge, the apex of the fore-wing beyond

the cell, extending about half-way along the apical mar-

gin being paler, and gradually faded off to black-brown,

with black veins, and slender black lines between the

veins.

92 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

The male of P. Noctis is more glossy black, with the

apical portion of the fore-wings scarcely lighter than the

basal portion: whilst the male of P. Noctula, in addition

to the raven-purple colour of the upper side of the wings,

has the two discoidal veins and the two terminal branches

of the post-costal vein of the fore-wings slightly marked

on each side with a few luteous scales on the upper side,

whilst on the under side (which wants the purple gloss),

the six terminal longitudinal veins of the fore-wings are

more distinctly margined with luteous lines; the hind-

wings are small.

The male of P. Now is further distinguished by having

the front of the head and palpi clothed with pinkish-red

scales, as well as the posterior orbit of the eyes; there is

also a spot of the same colour in front of the fore-wings,

and one beneath the base of each wing ; the anal valves

are also partially clothed with pinkish-red scales.

The male of P. Noctis has the face and anal valves

blackish-brown, and destitute of the red scales, whilst the

male of P. Noctula has the lower part of the face slightly,

and the whole of the palpi, as well as the sides of the

collar and thorax, close to and beneath the base of the

wings, red.

Papilio Striz, nov. sp. PI. IV. fig. 4.

P. alis feemine magnis, late ovatis, nigris ; omnibus

longitudinaliter luteo-striatis ; posticis mediocriter sinuatis

corpore nigro, facie, palpis, lateribus colli thoracisque

subtus alarum basin, anoque, rufo-notatis.

Expans. alar. unc. 5}.

Hab.—Borneo. In Mus. Hewitson.

The female specimens (Pl. IV. fig. 4) in the collection

of Mr. Hewitson, which, from the identity of their locality,

I have considered may possibly be the true partners of

the males described above as P. Noctula, have very large

oval fore-wings, resembling those of P. Now, whilst the

hind-wings are also comparatively of large size, but less

strongly sinuated than in P. Now, thus resembling P.

Hrebus, Wallace, Linn. Trans. XXV. p. 41 (from Malacca

=P. Nox, var. De Haan, Verh. t. 5, f. 3, 3), from Ban-

jermassing, Borneo.

at

Papilionide. 93

In the fore-wings, the portion of the post-costal vein,

between the origin of its second and third branches, is

of nearly equal length, with the spaces between the third

and fourth branches; the third branch arises at a small

distance beyond the cell, and the terminal portion of

the post-costal vein, beyond the insertion of the fourth

branch, is three times the length of the space between

the origin of the third and fourth branches: whereas,

in P. Nox and P. Erebus, the space between the third

and fourth branches, is much elongated, and occupies

nearly two-fifths of the length of the post-costal vein

between the end of the cell and the tip of the wing, and

the space between the second and third branches is only

two-thirds of the length of that between the third and

fourth branches.

The wings, both above and below, are black, strongly

marked with longitudinal cream-coloured stripes on

either side of the longitudinal black veins, the discoidal

cell is also marked with a number of similar lines less

decidedly. The hind-wings are also similarly marked on

each side of the longitudinal veins, the incisures of the

hind-wing’s are not so deep as in P. Now, the four central

ones being marked by small triangular cream-coloured

spots, the face, sides of the thorax, and extremity of the

body are clothed with scarlet scales.

The female of P. Nox (P. Memercus, Godart) is brown

above, with the apical half of the fore-wings strongly

marked with brownish-white scales on each side of the

veins, the hind-wings being uniformly brown on both sides.

The female of P. Hrebus is black above; the veins,

especially at the apex of the fore-wings, margined with

white scales, becoming gradually more sooty towards the

inner angle, and the under wings are raven-black, each

of the spaces between the veins, beyond the cell, bearing

a large triangular jet black spot.

The female of P. Noctis, Hewitson, Proc. Zool. Soc.

1859 (p. 423, pl. LXVI. f. 5, 6), is described thus :—

“upper side dark brown; all the nervures, except those

which enclose the cell, margined with lighter colour,

with white near the apex of the anterior wing and the

outer margin of the posterior wing; posterior wing

with a band of dirty white near the outer margin ; outer

margin of both wings light yellow. Underside as above,

except that the margins of the nervures of the anterior

ye

94 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

wing are whiter, and that the outer margin of the posterior

wing is broadly cream-colour, marked with a double row

of black spots.”

“* Eixpans. 4,9, inch.”

“ Hab.—Borneo.”

Papilio Papone, nov. sp. Pl. III. fig. 2.

P. alis anticis elongato-triangularibus, posticis brevior-

ibus, subtriangularibus, sinuatis ; omnibus supra cyaneo-

nigris; posticis pone medium maculis 5 elongato-trigonis,

postice bifidis, serieque macularum 7 subapicalium, inter-

mediis lunatis, albidis, harum interna fulva, incisuris

tenuiter albidis, interna etiam fulva; alis subtus rufo-

fuscis, posticis ut supra maculatis, incisuris late fulvis.

Expans. alar. antic. unc. 44.

Habitat in India orientali D. Pratt. In Mus. Hopeiano

Oxonie (olim nostr.).

This species is closely allied to P. Panope, in the style

of the markings of the hind-wings; but, on the upper

side, all the wings are of a rich blue-black, the anterior

being entirely immaculate,* and elongate triangular,

whilst the hind-wings are subtriangular, the apical mar-

gin appearing as though truncate instead of being rounded

as in P. Panope. The sinuations of the hind-wings are

of moderate depth, with whitish incisures ; these wings

are marked beyond the middle with a row of five large

spear-shaped marks, followed by a row of lunules, of

which the inner one is fulvous, and the four others cream

coloured, followed towards the outer angle by two oval

spots of the same colour; the marginal incisures are very

slenderly buff coloured, those nearest the anal angle

being orange ; the head and anterior part of the thorax

are spotted with white as in P. Panope, and the abdo-

minal segments are marked with slender white lines at

the sides.

The underside of all the wings is a rich red-brown,

with a slight purple tinge seen in certain lights; the

fore-wings are immaculate, except a few white scales at

the base, of which there are also two patches at the base

* With a lens, a very few luteous scales can be perceived in those parts

of the fore-wings near the apical margin, where the cream-coloured row

of spots are developed in P. Panope.

Papilionide. 95

of the hind-wings; the latter are marked beneath as

above, except that the marginal row of incisures is broad

and fulvous, so that each incisure is separated from the

white submarginal lunule by a slender black lunule ;

the spots at the anal angle are united into a fulvous

oval spot, with a black rounded spot in its middle; the

underside of the thorax is considerably spotted with

white, and the abdomen has a row of white spots on each

side and down the centre.

Papilio Ramaceus, nov. sp. Pl. V. fig. 3.

P. alis rufo-fuscis, anticis magnis; serie submarginali

macularum parvarum albidarum ; posticis serie macularum

cuneiformum pone cellulam cum serie submarginali lunu-

larum albidarum absque incisuris, albis.

Expans. alar. antic. unc. 33.

Habitat in Borneo (D. Lowe). In Muss. Oxon., Hewit-

son, Druce.

This species (of which I have seen several perfectly simi-

lar specimens) has the fore-wings of a comparitively much

larger and broader form than P. Macareus, to which it is

nearly related. The upper side of the wings is of a rich

red-brown colour, with a silky gloss; the anterior pair

are immaculate, except a submarginal row of small cream

coloured spots near the apical margin ; the spots next the

inner angle being preceded occasionally, as in the speci-

men figured, by two other still smaller ones; the hind-

wings have a row of arrow-head shaped spots, varying

somewhat in size, beyond the middle of the wing, pre-

ceded by an indistinct spot at the extremity of the dis-

coidal cell, and followed by a submarginal row of whitish

lunules extending to the anal angle. On the underside

the wings are similarly marked, but the ground-colour of

all the wings is very pale brown, and the spots at the

inner angle of the fore-wings are extended to the margin ;

the hind-wings are marked, on the hinder margin, with

six very small and narrow white incisures; the body

above is black, marked with white dots on the head, and

neck, and the sides of the abdomen have a slender white

line on each side beneath ; the sides of the thorax on the

upperside, are destitute of the whitish gray hairs which

are so distinct in P. Macareus.

The relationship of this form with P. Macareus, is

indicated by its name being an anagram of the name of

that species.

96 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

Papilio Odenatus,* nov. sub-sp. Pl. III. figs. 3, 4

P. alis anticis brevioribus, posticis ecaudatis, sinuatis,

fusco-nigricantibus, fascia maculari communi, albida, in

alis anticis fere ad apicem extensa, in posticis subangusta ;

subtus fusca, fascia ut supra, at in anticis abbreviata,

macula alba ad apicem cellule discoidalis alteraque ovata

subapicali; posticis basi fulvis, nigro-striatis, maculisque

duabus subcostalibus nigris, pone fasciam nigro striatis,

sinubus marginalibus vix albo-notatis.

Expans. alar. antic. unc. 4.

Hab.—Old Calabar, Muss. Hopeiano Oxonie ; Ashantee

in Mus. Brit.

This species is intermediate between the P. Zenobia,

of Fabricius, as figured by Donovan (P. Cypreofila, of

Butler),and P. Messalina, Stoll., agreeing with the former

in the narrowness and more decidedly marked central

fascia of the hind-wings, but differing from it in the

almost total obliteration of the white edges to the mar-

ginal incisures of the wings, in which latter respect, as

well as in the broken, macular fascia of the fore-wings

beneath, it more nearly agrees with Messalina, from

which, however, it differs in the narrow fascia of the

hind-wings.

The fore-wings are black-brown, with very minute

white incisures, and the hind-wings are similarly coloured,

with the incisures distinct, but narrowly white; all the

wings are traversed by a cream-coloured fascia, which is

macular in the fore-wings, running from rather beyond

the middle of the hinder margin towards the apex, and

not recurved towards the costa, as in P. Oypreofila ; it

consists, in the fore-wings, of eight spots, of which the

first nearest the apex of the wings is of moderate size,

elongate-oval, and bifid at its apex, and placed about

half-way between the cell and the apex; the second is

much smaller elongate-triangular ; the third, fourth, fifth,

and sixth are of nearly equal size, each rounded within

and pointed without; the seventh is the largest, and

divided in two by the false fold, and the eighth is narrow,

and rests on the hinder margin; the fascia in the hind-

wings is entire, running entirely across the wing, half

* I have named this species after the husband of Zenobia.

Papilionide. 97

of the fascia being within, and half beyond the discoidal

cell ; the inner margin of this fascia is straight, but the

outer is acutely dentate, the black part of the wing

running upwards very slightly along the veins, whilst the

middle of each of the dark spaces intervening between

the veins is acutely extended much further upwards or

backwards with a sharp defined margin. There are a few

scattered whitish scales visible at the extremity of the cell

of the fore-wings; on the underside, the second smaller

triangular spot of the fascia of the fore-wings is obsolete,

and there is a more decided white spot at the extremity

of the cell; the base of the hind-wings is dark orange-

buff, with black stripes between the veins, there being

three within the discoidal cell, of which the middle one

is abbreviated ; the black mark between the costal and

post-costal vein is much the thickest, divided near its

base obliquely to two parts; the cream-white fascia of

the hind-wings is rather narrower than above, and there

is tendency to develop a spot beyond the fascia in the

area between the second post-costal branch and the dis-

coidal vein ; the spaces between the veins, beyond the

fascia, are much more strongly marked with a black

longitudinal stripe than on the upper side.

I have named this species, which extends from Old

Calabar to Ashanti, after the husband of Zenobia, to ex-

press its close affinity with the Papilio so named.

Papitio ZENOBIA.

The insect described by Fabricius, in all his works,

under the name of P. Zenobia, was stated by him to have

been a native of Sierra Leone, and to have been in

the collection of Sir J. Banks. In his last work (Ent.

Syst. iii. p. 37, repeated on p. 115) he referred the

species to Jones, fig. pict. 1, tab. 68. On this drawing,

however, Jones refers to the collection of Drury, and not

to that of Banks. Donovan (Nat. Repos. 5, pl. 179)

figures the same insect as Jones, stating that this is a

“splendid Papilio represented in the drawings of Mr.

Jones, as referred to by Fabricius. Our figure is, how-

ever, from the specimen itself, in the cabinet of Sir J.

Banks, Bart., and was copied during the life-time, and

by the express permission of its very worthy possessor.”

On comparing Donovan’s and Jones’ figures, however, it

98 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

is evident that the former is a bad copy of the latter;

they both represent the butterfly as measuring about five

inches in expanse (nearly an inch wider than the natural

size) , but Donovan incorrectly represents the fascia of the

fore-wings as extending quite to the costal margin, as

well as having the anterior spots of the fascia much too

elongated, especially that between the two terminal

branches of the post-costal vein, which is represented as

extending backwards to the cell itself; he has also drawn

the small white marginal incisures of the fore-wings at

equal intervals apart, whereas, two of them are wanting

near the apex of the wing. Mr. Butler (Cat. Lep. D.

Fabr. p. 252) states, however, that the type specimen of

P. Zenobia is in the Banksian collection, and is quite

distinct from Donovan’s species, the latter being P.

Cypreofila (Butler, Ent. Month. Mag. V. p. 60). If this

be the case, we must admit that Fabricius incorrectly

referred his species to Jones’s ‘ Icones,’ and that Donovan’s

assertion of his drawing having been made from the

Banksian type was false. We are thus reduced to the

Fabrician description; and I think we must allow that

the words ‘‘ maculis marginalibus albis”’ can only be in-

tended for the insect figured by Donovan and Jones ;

the ‘‘fascia interrupta nec marginem attingit” in the

fore-wings, although not inapplicable to the insect

figured by Donovan, would agree better with Stoll’s

figure of Messalina, (pl. xxvi. f. 2), which Mr. Butler

regards as the true P. Zenobia, agreeing with the insect

in the Banksian cabinet; whilst the words “ subtus con-

colores at posticze basi flavee nervis striisque atris ”’ agree

better with the insect figured by Jones and Donovan,

than with Stoll’s P. Messalina, or even P. Odenatus, in

which the black mark towards the costa of the base of

the hind-wings is divided into two thick spots, which

Fabricius would hardly have called a stria; in fact, the

description which he has given of his next species, P.

Cynorta, which has the hind-wings, beneath, marked as

in Stoll’s Messalina, shows how completely he appreciated

this character, “‘affinis omnino precedenti (Zenobia)

paullo minor et macule marginales albe desunt at basis

flava, alze posticee punctis tribus distinctis nigris ;” ‘ pos-

ticis basi flavis nigro punctatis striatisque.’ Under

these circumstances, I am induced to retain the name of

P. Zenobia for the insect figured by Donovan, and to

apply that of P. Messalina to Stoll’s insect, which Mr.

Butler regards as the true Zenobia.

Papilionide. 99

Papilio Parsedon, nov. sp. Pl. V. figs. 1, 2.

P. alis nigro-fuscis, fascia communi albida, ad margi-

nem internum anticarum sensim et ad costam posticarum

valde, dilatata, punctis tribus parvis rotundatis subapicali-

bus in anticis et serie lunularum 5 ante marginem posti-

cam in posticis ejusdem coloris; alis posticis subcaudatis

subtus litura basali et 5 lituris pone fasciam rubris, angulo

anali absque ocello.

Expans. alar. antic. unc. 2}.

Habitat ? In Mus. Druce (HK Mus. Kaden abs-

que patriz indicatione).

The unique specimen of this sub-species is unfortunately

without any indication of its locality. It is evidently a

localized form of P. Sarpedon, remarkable for its small

size, the more pointed tail, and the remarkable width of

the pale fascia (common to both wings) where the an-

terior and posterior wings come in contact; the specimen

is a male, with very long white hairs along the anal mar-

gin of the hind-wings. The specimen is quite fresh, and

there seems no reason to suppose that the fasciz and

marks on the wings were ever of a green colour, or in

fact, different from their present pale straw colour, very

slightly tinged in certain points of view with green. The

veins in the broad part of the fascia, in both wings, are

very pale straw colour. There is a very small concolorous

spot on the inner margin of the hind-wing’s, near the

extremity of the fascia ; the pale lunules near the outer

margin of the hind-wings are small and narrow, especially

the three outer ones. The markings on the underside of

the wings are the same as above, except that the sub-

marginal lunules of the hind-wings are suffused with

brown scales, and are preceded by a series of five narrow

red marks, the innermost of which is in contact with the

extremity of the inner margin of the fascia of the hind-

wings. In both fore-wings, the membrane between the

base of the second and third branches of the median

vein, is marked with a dark curved line, inclosing a

somewhat triangular space.

The relationship of this form to P. Sarpedon is indi-

cated by its name being an anagram of that name.

The nearest approach to this form is made by certain

New Holland individuals of P. Sarpedon, one of which I

100 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

figured in the coloured plate of butterflies, in ‘ Parting-

ton’s Cyclopedia of Natural History,’ in which the green

band is much dilated in the middle. In the Oxford

Museum there are the following localized forms of Sar-

pedon.

From Assam. Hind-wings with the tooth at the ex-

tremity of the third branch of the median vein not

extending beyond that of the second branch; green

fascia on fore-wings, moderately divided by black veins ;

lunules of hind-wings narrow. Specimens from China

nearly agree with the preceding, but the fascia in the

fore-wings is somewhat more macular, and in the hind-

wings scarcely extending beyond the discoidal cell towards

the anal margin.

From Cuna (Hast Indies). Similar to the Assam spe-

cimens, but the hind-wings much more elongated, the

third branch of the median vein produced into a long

tooth, the part of the median vein crossing the green bar

of the hind-wings thick and black. Specimens from

Aru are nearly similar.

From New Holland. With the green fascia gradually

becoming very broad at the inner margin of the fore-

wings, and the costal margin of the hind-wings.

From Cetebes (P. Miletus, Wallace, Linn. Trans. XXV.

p. 65, pl. vu. f. 2; P. Milon, Felder). Fore-wings much

elongated, and acute at the tips, with the costal margin

more arched ; the green fascia in these wings of a bluer

colour, very narrow, and separated by the black veins

into distinct spots; hind-wings with the tail scarcely

produced, with the green submarginal lunules of large

size, and strongly angulated in the middle.

From Ceram (in Mus. Hewitson). Differs from the

Celebes type in the fore-wings being of the ordinary

form, with the green band wider, traversed only by the

black veins (as in the Continental types), and the hind-

wings formed as in the Celebes type (both in shape and

in the extent of the tail), with the green band broader

in the discoidal cell, the four green submarginal lunules

very strongly marked, and with a clear slender acute

lunule between the innermost lunule and the anal angle.

Papilionide. 104

Papilio Burchellanus, nov. sp. Pl. ILI. fig. 5

P. alis anticis magnis, latis et ovalibus ; posticis medio-

cribus, sinuatis: omnibus fuscis, posticis dimidio apicali

nigricanti, incisuris albis, serie macularum 6 punicearum

parvarum, interna duplicata, ante marginem apicalem

posita; collari rufo-binotato, lateribusque thoracis sub

basin alarum rufo-maculatis.

Expans. alar. une. 4 lin. 1.

Habitat in Brasilia, taken at Tenénte, near Farinha-

podre (D. Burchell). In Mus. Oxonie.

This species is nearest allied to the Brazilian P.

Pompeius, Proteus, and especially to Panthonus, 9? , from

which it differs in the very large size of the fore-wings,

which imparts to it a certain degree of resemblance to

some of the broad-winged species of Huplea.

The unique specimen collected by Dr. Burchell appears

to be a female, and in both of the hind-wings the ex-

tremity of the second branch of the median vein is muti-

lated, so that it might possibly be inferred that the

species was a tailed one, but for the circumstance that,

in the Papilionide, it is the third branch of the median

vein which is extended into the tail. The discoidal cell

of the hind-wing terminates in an acute angle; the third

branch of the median vein arising at the apex of the

angle, the space between the second and third branches

of the median vein being almost precisely of equal length

with the lower disco-cellular.

The last-mentioned character, together with the large

immaculate fore-wings, will distinguish this insect from

the great mass of black South American Papilios with red

spots on the hind-wings.

Papilio Chiansiades, nov. sp. Pl. V. figs. 4, 5.

P. alis supra nigricantibus incisuris albis ; anticis

macula magna albida in medio marginis interni; posticis

maculis tribus sanguineis prope angulum ani, anal late,

proxima anguste bipartita, dtia rotundata; posticis sub-

tus serie 7 macularum rubrarum submarginalium, majori-

bus tribus internis albo supra irroratis, duabusque internis

maculis duabus rubris supra adjunctis; thorace infra fulvo-

rufo-maculato (¢).

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1872.—PaRT 1. (MAY.) I.

102: Prof. J. O. Westwood on

Expans. alar. antic. unc. 4}.

Habitat Rio Topo, Ecuador (Buckley). In Muss. Druce

et Hewitson.

The fore-wings are elongate-triangular, with the apical

margin slightly emarginate, the incisures towards the

inner angle narrowly white. They are of a black-brown

colour, with a large, nearly semicircular, patch of luteous

white in the middle of the hinder margin, extending

nearly to the first branch of the median vein. The

hind-wings are deeply incised along the outer margin,

the middle point being somewhat the most prominent;

the incisures white; there is a large transverse, oval,

blood-red patch, irrorated with black scales, extending

inward from the anal angle, composed of three patches

separated by the veins, the one at the anal angle being

widely divided into two portions, and the next also

divided by a thinner transverse dark line into two por-

tions, whilst the innermost spot is roundly oval and

entire.

On the underside, the spot on the inner margin of the

fore-wing’s is smaller than above, and the red spots of the

upper side reappear, the larger ones irrorated above with

white scales, and supplemented by a row of four submar-

ginal red spots, extending to the outer angle.

The collar above is obscurely marked with two fulvous

spots, and the head with four white ones; the underside

of the thorax is also marked with fulvous-red spots on

each side.

In the males of P. Anchisiades, the fore-wings are

more falcate at the tip, and the few pale scales (when pre-

sent) are placed near the posterior angle of the fore-

wings; in the hind-wings, the red patch is larger and

oval, the portion between the first and second branches

of the median vein being entire, and the two external

portions bipartite.

In the females of P. Anchisiades, the pale patch in the

fore-wings is larger, more oval in shape, and does not

extend between the postmedian vein and the inner mar-

gin of the wing.

P. Evander, Godt. (Idceus, Fab.) has the pale apical half

of the fore-wings, suddenly separated from the dark base

and the red spots of the hind-wings, both in the males

and females, as strongly marked as in P. Anchisiades ;

the fore-wings in the female being destitute of the pale

discoidal spot.

Papilionde. 103

In P. Orchamus, the fore-wings are much shorter, and

broadly triangular, with an oblique abbreviated fascia

extending across and below the extremity of the discoidal

cell, and the red patch of the hind-wing is of larger size

and ovate, extending into the extremity of the discoidal

cell, the outer and inner portion being marked by a

black spot.

P. Polybius and P. Caudius have elongated narrow tails.

Papilio (Euryades) Reevii, nov sp.

P. alis supra obscure fulvis, subtus pallidioribus et

magis stramineis; anticis macula subapicali flavescenti,

margine nigro, maculis marginalibus flavidis; posticis

dimidio postico supra fusco, subtus nigro, serie duplici

macularum, rubrarum alterdque macularum majorium,

supra lutearum, subtus straminearum, interpositaé; mar-

gine sinuato, incisuris albis, et 1-caudato.

Expans. alar. antic. unc. 34.

Hab.—Buenos Ayres (J. W. Reeve). Mus. Druce.

The only specimen of this very interesting butterfly

which I have seen, is contained in the rich collection of

Mr. Druce, who has kindly allowed me to describe it,

and who has suggested the specific name adopted above,

in honour of the captor of the insect.*

In proposing for it, however, a distinct specific name,

in the uncertainty which (as a unique specimen) rests

upon its sexual relationship, I must suggest the possi-

bility of its being the opposite sex of Papilio Duponchelit

of Lucas (Ann. Soc. Ent. France, tom. 8, pl. viii. p. 91),

an insect which its describer considered to be most

nearly allied to P. Grayi and Scamander, from Entre

Rios, between Parana and Uruguay, of the sex of the

typical specimen of which there appears to me also to be

some doubt. This is a black-winged butterfly, having a

broken macular yellow fascia on the fore-wings, extend-

ing into a large discoidal yellow spot on the hind-wings,

followed by two rows of small round scarlet spots, yellow

marginal incisures, and a single tail. Of this insect M.

Lucas expressly says “ Foominam tantum novi.” Dr.

* Figures of Mr. Druce’s specimen will appear in my forthcoming

* Thesaurus Entomologicus.’ Pl. XXXIII. fig. 1, 2.

to

104 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

Felder (Sp. Lep., pp. 39, 88) has placed P. Duponchelit

in the genus Huryades, adding, as a second species, the

Papilio Corethrus, of Lacordaire and Boisduval (Sp. Gen.

Lepid. I. p. 314, pl. 17, le, fig.2; Lucas, in Chenu’s En-

cycl. d’Hist. Nat. Lep. t. 9. f. 1), and remarking on its

close relationship to tbe genus Hurycus.

Now, the females of P. Corethrus, as stated by the late

Edward Doubleday (Gen. D. L. p. 21), from information

which I communicated to him, have a large horny pouch

on the underside of the extremity of the body, as in the

genera Hurycus and Parnassius, but of this structure no

mention is made by M. Lucas in his description of the

supposed female P. Duponchelii. The wings in P. Core-

thrus are, also, not so densely clothed with scales as in the

ordinary species of Papilio; they are quite alike in

colour and marking in both sexes, the male external

organs resembling those of Hurycus.

The remarkable diversity in the sexes of Hurycus, the

male being black and white, with a row of blood-red

spots on the hind-wings, whilst the female is semi-trans-

parent, dull buff varied with brown, suggests to my mind

the possibility that the black, yellow, and red butterfly,

figured by M. Lucas under the name of P. Duponchelu,

may be a male, the true female of which will probably

prove to be a pale coloured, semi-transparent butterfly,

analogous to that of Hurycus ; mm which case, it seems to

me to be not improbable, that P. Reevii may prove to

be its female. In the meantime, until I have an op-

portunity of examining the structure of P. Duponchelit,

it will be desirable to consider P. Reevii as a distinct

species.*

Papilio Thersander.

Under this name, a species of swallow-tailed butterflies

was described by Fabricius, in his ‘ Ent. Syst.,’ vol. 3, pt.

1, p. 32, with the reference to Jones, fig. pict. vol. 1. tab.

71, and to the collection of Drury, as a native of Sierra

Leone. This insect is now regarded as the female of the

well-known P. Doreus, Fabr. Syst. Ent. p. 457, and Ent.

Syst. vol. 3, pt. 1. p. 68 (Phoreas, Cram. pl. 2, figs. B, C).

* Since the above observations were written, it_has been announced

that M. Guenée has communicated a memoir on P. Duponchelii to the

Academy of Lyons, : the publication of which we look forward with

great interest.

Papilionide. 105

- About the year 1840,* the famous collection of draw-

ings made by Mr. Jones, was deposited for a short time

at the British Museum, where I had the opportunity of

studying the species of Papilionide which it contained,

and of which I made considerable use in my ‘ Arcana

Entomologica,’ 1841-1845. The figures in these drawings

of P. Thersander were very accurate ones, representing

a moderate-sized true Papilio, from Drury’s collection,

marked asa native of Sierra Leone, with brown wings,

having, on the upper side, a cream-coloured fascia ex-

tending across them, being macular on the fore-wings,

and placed beyond the discoidal cell, but entire in the

hind-wings, and not extending beyond the discoidal cell ;

between the fascia and the apical margin of the fore-

wings is a small subapical spot, and a lower row of four

small submarginal spots, each divided by the longitudinal

fold between the branches of the veins, the four middle in-

cisures of the fore-wings are cream-coloured, and the one

next the anal angle is larger and triangular ; the hind-

wings have a submarginal row of cream-coloured spots,

mostly divided by the folds between the longitudinal

veins ; the incisures are of the same colour, and the

spatulated tail is marked on each edge with a similar

coloured marginal spot.

The examination which I was thus enabled to make,

enabled me to determine that a specimen of a Papilio, at

that time unnamed in the collection of the Bristol Insti-

tution, forwarded to me by the. care of the late W.

Raddon, Esq., and one in the British Museum, were

identical with a Fabrician and Jonesian butterfly, and I

accordingly figured both sides of the former specimen

in my ‘ Arcana Entomologica,’ vol. I. p. 148, pl. xxxvin.

figs. 1, 2, under the name of P. Thersander, with a state-

ment of the means by which I had arrived at the identi-

fication of the species, and with the following additional

observations :—‘ This is the more necessary to be stated

because Donovan, in-his ‘ Naturalist’s Repository,’ vol.

* At the present time (1871), the seven large quarto volumes, into

which this collection of drawings is bound, belong to the family of F.

Dawtrey Drewitt, Esq., of Christ Church, Oxford, and Burnham, Arundel,

a gentleman of great artistic promise, who proposes to publish the un-

figured and doubtful species represented therein, and who has allowed

me to make a very careful collation of the entire collection.

106 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

III. pl. Ixxv., figured the upper and under side of a

totally different insect, under the name of P. Thersander,

and which he says were copied from Jones’s figures. If

not artificial, they, however, represent one of the Nym-

phalide (Charazes sp.), as is evident from the head and

antenne. There are, however, no such figures in Jones’s

“Icones:’ so that Donovan must have fallen into some

strange error respecting the species.”

Now, Donovan’s figures represent a butterfly brown on

the upper side, with a macular yellow fascia on the fore-

wings, extending nearly to the tip of the wings, preceded

by a yellow spot in the discoidal cell, and another in

the costal margin, near the middle of the wing, and

followed by a submarginal line of yellow linear trans-

verse marks, and rather large yellow incisures; the hind-

wing traversed by an entire yellow band with irregular

margins, followed by a double row of submarginal spots,

large yellow incisures, and a single spatulate tail with

yellow edges; the underside is of a lilac colour, the basal

half with dark undulating transverse lines (intended to

represent the longitudinally ‘nigro lineate” of the

Fabrician description of the hind-wings), an entire

yellow central fascia extending across all the wings

obliquely, followed by two irregular series of lunules, of

which the outer consists of seven white ones correspond-

ing with the “denique lunule septem albe” of the

Fabrician description. With these figures, so completely

at variance with those of Mr. Jones’s ‘Icones,’ Donovan

published the following observations :—“ The experienced

entomologist, conversant with the labours of Fabricius,

will be best enabled to appreciate the importance of the

plate which we now submit to his attention; he will be

aware of the existence of this fine species of the Papilio

tribe from the description which Fabricius has left us ;

and he will also know that it is only from that description,

with the additional aid of Mr. Jones’s drawings, that this

interesting and conspicuous species can be at this time

possibly ascertained, for there are no descriptions of the

species extant, except those repeated from the writings

of Fabricius, nor any figure excepting that in the col-

lectanea of Mr. Jones’s drawings, to which Fabricius

exclusively refers. After having advanced the preced-

ing observations, it will be assuredly sufficient for us, in

order to ensure the attention of the entomologist, to

Papilionide. 107

observe that, although we possess a very choice example

of this elegant insect in our own cabinet, the figures in

the annexed plate are faithful copies of the individual

drawings in the collection of Mr. Jones, to which Fabri-

cius has referred; and we conceive we render some

advantage at least to science, in thus enabling the natu-

ralist to identify this fine and very interesting species in

the classical work of that estimable entomologist, who has

alone described it.”

The attempt to unravel the real history of these figures

is worthy our attention, by letting us into the secret of

Donovan’s mode of preparing such of the plates of his

illustrated works as represent those Fabrician butterflies

which had been described only from Jones’s ‘ Icones.’

Mr. Jones lived at Chelsea, and Donovan, as an excellent

artist, engaged in publishing various illustrated works on

the science, was allowed unlimited use of these drawings ;

and his general plan was to copy, in strong body water-

colours, the upper-surface of the two wings on one side

of the species, adding marginal notes of the differences

exhibited by the under-surface of the same wings; and

it is from these notes, and not from direct copies of

Jones’s drawings, that many of the undersides of Dono-

van’s figures were published. Donovan’s set of copies,

thus made, were subsequently purchased by the Rev. F.

W. Hope, who added them to his entomological library,

presented, as is well known, with his collections, to the

University of Oxford, and now under my charge. From

these it is evident that Donovan was a careless person,

his drawings having been kept in a very dirty condition.

Now it happens that Donovan’s copy of the figure of

the upper-surface of P. Thersander had been grievously

mutilated (it appears as though it, as well as some other

of his copies, had been gnawed by mice), half of the

costal portion and part of the apical portion of the fore-

wings, and half the base, including the pale fascia, and

the whole of the anal margin of the hind-wings have

disappeared. The fragments were put together by Dono-

van, and mounted on a sheet of thick whitey-brown paper,

on which Mr. Hope wrote, “ put together by Donovan to

settle some dispute.” Moreover, a portion of the end of

each line of the note of description of the underside has

been lost, and, consequently, did not afford Donovan

sufficient material to manufacture a figure of the under-

103 Prof. J. O. Westwood on

side. To do this, he had recourse to collections, and

finding in one of the varieties of Nymphalis (Charawes)

Fabius (var. Hannibal), a dark brown butterfly with

a macular pale fascia on the fore-wings, and an entire

one on the hind-wings, he (regardless of the varia-

tion in the arrangement of the fore-wing veins and

peculiar shaped tail to the hind-wing, still visible in his

tattered fragments), compounded a figure of the upper

surface, in which he introduced a spot within the dis-

coidal cell, and another in the middle of the costa of the

fore-wings, of which there are no traces given in his

own fragments, and converted the two short acute tails

of the Charazes into the spatulate one of P. Thersander,

adding a red lunule on a yellow ground at the anal angle,

whilst, as his notes of the under-surface of P. T’hersander

had been partially destroyed, he was obliged to depend

entirely on his specimen of the Charaxes, which does not

bear the slightest resemblance to that of P. Thersander.

By way of confirming the above statements, and of

shewing the manner in which some of Donovan’s figures

were manufactured, I add the following notes on two

other species of butterflies.

EurL@a SYLVESTER.

In the ‘ Naturalist’s Repository,’ vol. iv. p. 120, is pub-

lished a tolerably correct copy of the upperside of this

species, from Jones (omitting the white dots on the head

and thorax, and making the middle spot on the costa of the

fore-wings transverse instead of oblique) whilst the under-

side is represented uniformly brown, with the exception of

three small white dots beyond the middle of the fore-

wings, and a submarginal series of ten minute white spots

in the fore, and of fourteen similar close to the outer

margin of the hind-wings. Jones’s figure, however, of

the underside, represents the hind-wing as marked with

the same broad white macular band as the upperside,

preceded by one small white spot within the discoidal

cell, followed by a curved row of seven small spots, close

to the inner edge of the white fascia, which is followed

by a submarginal row of twelve small dots, of which there

are only six in the fore-wings. On referring to Donovan’s

copies from Jones, we find the upper surface alone repre-

sented, but on the brown ground of the wings are to be

seen several small black dots, with the marginal note:

Papilionide. ; 109

‘‘These black dots are not seen, but only denote”

(here torn, but meaning the white dots which Donovan

introduced into his published figure, and which he evi-

dently supposed in 1825, when he published his plate,

were the only markings in the under-surface of the wings.

Again, in the ‘ Mantissa Insectorum,’ and Ent. Syst.

ii. p. 260, Fabricius described—

THEcLA Tron,

with the ‘‘ Habitat in America, meridionali, Mus. Dr.

Hunter.” The description, which is identical in the two

works, is very clear; ‘‘ alis—subtus albis; posticis fascia

abbreviata sanguinea.”—In Jones’s ‘ Icones,’ vol. v. pl.

i. fig. 2, 2a, a large species of T'hecla was represented as

P. Timon, with a reference to the collection of ‘ Drury,”

from ‘‘ Amer. meridion.” It happens, however, that we

are able to state, that this species figured by Jones was

not recognized by Fabricius, as having been described

by himself; for at the commencement of this fifth volume

of Jones’s ‘ Icones,’ is a manuscript of such of the species

as had been described by Fabricius in his own hand-

writing, as we learn by Mr. Jones’s note, “ This is Mr.

Fabricius’s own writing, the names given and corrected

by himself ;” and in this list neither of the species re-

presented in pl. I. are referred to. Donovan, however,

with his usual boldness, affirms of the figures which he

published in the ‘ Naturalist’s Repository,’ vol. III. pl.

xcvil., copied from Jones’s figures :—

«« Papilio Timon is another of those choice anaes of

the Papilio tribe, for the description of which we are in-

debted solely to Fabricius, and for the illustration of the

" species in the inestimable drawings of Mr. Jones. The

species is a native of South America, and was originally

preserved in the cabinet of Mr. Drury ; ; subsequently this

rarity came into our own possession. Fabricius refers

for the specimen he describes, to the cabinet of Dr.

Hunter, in which there may perhaps be other examples

of the same insect; but we are well assured from the

Fabrician MS., that the description of the species which

he has left us, was taken from the drawings in the collec-

tion of Mr. Jones, and that this drawing was copied from

the specimen in the cabinet of Mr. Drury, to which we

have adverted.”

110

It will be seen from the preceding observations that,

whilst the last statement is quite correct, the preceding

one is false, the description having been made from a

specimen in the Hunterian collection, which disagrees

with that figured by Jones and copied by Donovan, in

having a reddish stripe running across all the wings on

The real type of Th. Timon is still pre-

served in the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow, and Mr.

Butler has been enabled to give a detailed description of

the underside.

Prof. J. O. Westwood on Papilionide.

it (Cat. Fabr. Diurn. Lep., p. 183).

Fig.

Fig.

Gal fas I oP fe

Oe

Explanation of the Plates.

Puate III.

Papilio Buddha, p. 86.

Papilio Papone, p. 94.

Papilio Odenatus, underside, p. 96.

rf . upperside.

Papilio Burchellanus, p. 101.

Puate IY.

Papilio Now, male.

Papilio Noctis, male.

Papilio Noctula, male, p. 90.

Papilio Strix, female underside, p. 92.

Papilio Noctis, female underside.

Puate V.

Papilio Parsedon, upperside, p. 59.

a A underside.

Papilio Ramaceus, p. 95.

Papilio Chiansiades, upperside, p. 101.

. a underside.

Gall)

VI. Notes on the Diurnal Lepidoptera described by Ja-

blonsky and Herbst, in their “ Natursystem aller

bekannten Insekten.” By W. F. Kirsy, Assistant

in the Museum of the Royal Dublin Society.

[Read 4th March, 1872.]

Tuis work seems to be little known to entomologists,

except by name; but as it contains several new species

and corrections of synonymy, a few notes may not be

uninteresting. By far the largest number of species

figured, are copied from Cramer, Esper, Drury, &c., and

hence the five per cent, or so, of new species, &c., have

not unnaturally been overlooked.

Vol. 1. By Jablonsky, 1782.

9. Pap. Panparus, Jabl., p. 209, t. 6, f. 1.

This species, the Pseudopandarus of Esper, is univers-

ally considered to be a fabrication.

Vol. 2. By Jablonsky, 1784.

32. Pap. Poorpanta, L., p. 125, t. 12, f. 3.

The first figure of this species in any systematic work.

It is copied from D’Aubenton.

5b. > Pav: Preavs' (?); Ey p. 260, t2 19; f. 1:

Pap. Peleides, Esp. Boisduval doubts the existence of

this species.

Vol. 3. By Herbst, 1788.

99. Pap. Mittrapzs, p. 154, t. 44, f. 1, 2.

This species, copied from D’Aubenton, is, as Doubleday

remarks, a compound of the fore-wings of P. Hrithonius

and the hind-wings of P. Ajaz.

116. Par. Pomptuius, F., p. 205, t. 49, f. 5, 6.

Pap. Policenes, Cr., is figured under this name. Pap.

Pompilius, F., is a somewhat doubtful species.

124. Pap. Crituon, p. 228, t. 52, f. 5, 6.

Pap. (AMegalura) Crethon, Fabr. The only existing

figure of this species.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—parT 1. (MAyY.)

112) =Mr. W. F. Kirby on Jablonsky and Herbst’s

Vol. 4. By Herbst, 1790.

154. Pap. Casus, p. 65, t. 64, f. 1, 2.

Pap. Brutus, Cr., nec Fabr.; Charaaes Brutus, auct.

If the Fabrician species has the priority, Herbst’s name

should probably stand. It is, however, a dubious point,

whether a name altered on the ground of double emplor,

and since overlooked, should afterwards be restored,

when no confusion between the two names is any longer

possible.

159. Pap. Arricus, p. 75.

Pap. Empedocles, ¥., nec Cr. Here again Herbst’s

name should, perhaps, supplant that of Fabricius.

28. Pap. Carona, p. 131, t. 72, f. 2.

An undetermined species of Migonitis.

40. Pap. Myrt, F., p. 150, t. 74, f. 5.

Under this name, Herbst figures. Pap. Hrycinia, Cr.

(Archomas Bellona, Cr. 9); Pap. Myrti, Fab. is however

= Migonitis Ricini, L. (Crotch having shown that the true

type of Heliconius is Psidii, L., the genus which has

hitherto usurped that name must be called Migonitis, H.).

46.. (Pap, Hacanr, 8 .,.p; 161) &: 76; fab:

Herbst rightly figures Migonitis Pasithoe, Houtt., Cr.

under this name. It is very doubtful whether the Fabri-

cian name ought not to stand for this species, as it was

first figured by Houttuyn, “ Nat. Hist.,” t. 1, par. 11, p.

231, pl. 88, f. 2, by mistake for Delias Pasithoe, L.

Vol. 5. By Herbst, 1792.

1. Par. Ropotpurna, p. 7, t. 81, f. 1, 2.

Cramer figured two species, a Melinea, and an Acrea,

under the name Hgina. Stoll refigured the former on a

subsequent plate, as Ludovica, which name should per-

haps be accepted; Herbst renames the Acrea, to which

the name Hgina belongs by priority, Pap. Rudolphina.

11. Pap. Karscuina, p. 26, t. 83, f. 5, 6.

Herbst employs this name for Huritea, Dru., nec Cr.,

and his name must stand. It has since been twice

renamed; and is inserted in my catalogue as Melinea

Gazoria, Godt.

12. Pap. Unzurina, p. 27, t. 83, f. 7.

Herbst erroneously adopts this name for Ithomia dia-

phanus, Dr., in consequence of Stoll and Cramer haying

Diurnal Lepidoptera. . 113

subsequently figured another species (I. Drymo, Hiibn.)

as diaphana.

17. Pap. ANACARDII, p. 34, t. 84, f. 8.

Under this name, Herbst copies Merian’s figure of

Heetera Piera, L.

9. Par. Minna, p. 74, t. 89, f. 1, 2.

Catopsilia Pyranthe, var.

LOS Pav. Lina,ip. (opt. 89, £23, 4:

A species of Dismorphia, closely allied to D. Licinia, Cr.

fom Ese ONRGIA, Uo, pe 7G, t. 90, £. 1,

Hronia Argia. Herbst copies Cramer’s figure (Cassio-

pea, Cr., 201 A), and is the first author who figures the

species under the Fabrician name.

oz, Pap. Aurora, Cr., p. 103, t. 94, f. 5, 6.

30. Pap. Mura, p. 104, t. 94, f. 7-9.

35. Pap. Hucuaris, F., p. 107, t. 95, f. 5-8.

Callosune Aurora, Cr. (or rather Stoll), is usually

regarded as synonymous with Hucharis, F. Herbst con-

siders Stoll’s figures of the ? to represent the ¢ of

another species, which he calls Meta; and he figures as

its ? an insect perfectly similar, but with white instead

of orange spots at the tip of the fore-wings. As Pap.

Eucharis, F., he copies Stoll’s figures of Hborea, 6,

which= 0. Danae, F., and not Hucharis. I cannot satisfy

myself that Donovan’s figure of Hucharis, F. (Ins. Ind.

t. 27, f. 4), although undoubtedly very bad, really repre-

sents the same insect as Aurora, St.

48. Pap. AnTonog, p. 126, t. 100, f. 1-4.

Herbst adopts this name for Hyparete, Cr. & St.=

Delias Coeneus, Ii.

Silvie Paps Hyparnran, Lz, p. 131, .t. 101, f£. 3-7,

Under this name Herbst has mixed together the figures

of Cramer and Drury, representing Delias Hyparete, L.,

and D. Hucharis, Dr., nec F. The name Hucharis having

been used by Drury before Fabricius, the Fabrician

Eucharis mentioned above should retain the name Aurora.

70. Par. Marvta, p. 158.

Herbst adopts this name (wrongly in any: case) for the

fictitious Pap. Ecclipsis, L..

™~

114 Mr. W. F. Kirby on Jablonsky and Herbst’s

74, Pap. Lataag, p. 163, t. 106, f. 1, 2.

Catopsilia Crocale, 3, Cr.

82. Pap. Hucasz, L., p. 171, t. 106, f. 3-5.

Herbst’s figure of the ¢ evidently represents another

species.

87. Par. Hans, p. 77, t. 107; 1. 05 0.

This name must take precedence of Callosune Cebrene,

Boisd., for Pap. Arethusa, Cr. nee Dru.

88. Pap. Ainippz, Cr., p. 178, t. 107, f. 7, 8; t. 108,

fedyi2

Herbst refers to this species Cramer’s figures 105, C. D.,

and 157, ©. D.

90. Par. Uxrica, p. 182, t. 108, f. 9, 10.

Herbst proposes this name for Pap. (Iwias) Ainippe,

Cr., 229, B. C., nec 105, C. D.

91. Pap. Sxsra, F., p. 183, t. 109, f. 1-4.

Under this name Herbst figures Pap. Pyrene, Cr., 125,

A. B., and Pap. Evippe, Dru.

116, 118, 119. Par. Hysatz, PaLm=no, and Evroroms.

I merely mention these species to remark that the first

is the true Hyale, L.; the second, sareptensis, Staud. ;

and the last the true Paleno, L.

117. Pap. Heos, p. 213, t. 114, f. 5, 6.

Herbst rightly changes the name of Colias Aurora,

Esp., nec Aurora, Stoll.

Vol. 6. By Herbst, 1793.

3. Pap. Supersvs, p. 14, t. 119, f. 3; t. 120, f. 1, 2.

A well-known species of Huplea.

5. Pap. Cravpivs, F., p. 17, t. 120, f. 5.

Herbst first figures Pap. Midamus, L. (¢) under this

name.

74, Pap. Cicero, p. 130, t. 146, f. 3, 4.

Euthalia Evelina, Stoll.

81. Pap. Aconrusa, Cr., p. 143, t. 149, f. 1-4.

Herbst quotes Pap. Melissa, F., which is probably a

species of Cneis, as a synonym of this,

Diurnal Lepidoptera. 115

Vol. 7. By Herbst, 1794.

15. Par. Poustus, p. 83, t. 165, f. 6, 7.

Herbst would have done right in thus renaming Drury’s

Rumina, if this species were not synonymous with Amio-

cerces Thero, L.

28. Pap. Truuzus, p. 108, t. 169, f. 6, 7.

Herbst has thus renamed Precis Pelarga, F., without

stating his reasons.

29. Par. Cortinna, p. 110, t. 181, f. 1, 2.

Pap. Merione, Cr., is thus renamed, although it is prior

to Pap. Merione, F.

64. Pap. Aratanta, L., p. 171, t. 180, f. 1-6.

Herbst calls figs. 1 & 2 Atalanta Indica on his plate.

The insect thus named is Calliroé, Hubn.

Vol. 8. By Herbst, 1796.

67. Pap. Zrrentvs, p. 5, t. 182, f. 1, 2.

Melanitis Vamana, Moore, is the ¢ of this species.

[The writings of Latreille prove wndularis to be the

true type of Melanitis, and hence Leda and allies must

be referred to the genus Hipio, Hibn.].

2. Pap. Suwarovivs, p. 13, t. 182, f. 5-7.

Pap. Arge Russie, Esp.

3. Pap. Syiirus, p. 15, t, 182, f. 8, 9.

I am unable to state with certainty, whether this name

has the priority over Hsper’s Pap. Arge Occitanica. It

certainly has over Pap. Psyche, Hubn.

6. Par. Procipa, p. 22, t. 183, f. 5, 6.

The common Italian form of Melanargia Galathea.

22. Par. Hannrpat, p. 48, t. 188, f. 5-8.

Herbst adopts this name (in the text only) for Cceno-

nympha Dorus, Esp., apparently on account of there being

more than one Doris already.

36. Par. Hamitcar, p. 73, t. 193, f. 3.

Herbst rightly adopts another name for Pap. Doris,

Cr. & St. (nec L.), but the species is now referred to

Mycalesis Medus, F.

40. Pav. Evstacutvs, p. 77, t. 193, f. 8, 9.

Euselasia Mys, H.-S.

116 Mr. W. F. Kirby on Jablonsky and Herbst’s

oo. Par. Minnus, Tis,1p,192,%. 196/698, 2.

Mycalesis Drusia, Cr., is figured as Mineus, L.

60. Pav. Ipuicenus, p. 108, t. 198, f. 5-8.

A variety of Cenonympha Gidipus, ¥., figured by Esper

(subsequently to Herbst ?) under the name of Geticus.

67. Pap. Hippotytus, p. 126, t. 201, f. 3, 4.

Hipparchia Proserpina, Cyr. (vide infra) figured by

Esper, t. 83, fig. 4, as Pap. Actca, var.

74, Pap. TynDARELLUS, p. 135, t. 202, f. 5, 6.

I know not why Herbst changed the name of Hrebia

Tyndarus, Esp.; but he alters the terminations of many

other names, as Hiibner, Godart, and other authors, have

done after him. I have not retained the name Maniola,

Schr., for Hrebia, as according to Mr. Crotch’s views,

Satyrus, F., would take priority over Maniola in the

broad sense; and as Meigen did not materially restrict

the application of Maniola, that name can only be re-

tained, if at all, for Dejanira, L., which Von Heimemann

places in a genus by itself, adopting Schrank’s Maniola

for it.

99. Pap. Cyritius, p. 165, t. 206. f. 1, 2.

Herbst thus changes the name of Hipparchia Proser-

pina, Cyr., on account of its clashing with that of Denis

and Schiffermiiller, which, however, is a synonym of

Circe, F. In any case Ferula, F., would take precedence

of Herbst’s name; but in all probability Cyrilli’s insect

is only one of the numerous forms of Actewa, Hsp.

104. Pap. Mepza, p. 177, t. 208, f. 3, 4.

106. Par. Mepusa, p. 182, t. 209, f. 1, 2.

107. Pap. Airutors, p. 184, t. 209, f. 3, 4.

Herbst has sadly confused these species. His Medea=

Erebia Medusa, W. V., and the two other species repre-

sent the sexes of Li. Aithiops, Hsp.

138. Par. Maccasaus, p. 185, t. 209, f. 5, 6.

This species, though stated to come from India, is

probably a variety of Hrebia Pyrrha or EH. Melampus.

112. Par. Mutas, p. 191, t. 210, f. 4-7.

Erebia Melas, Auct.

151. Par. Cortus, p. 260, t. 225, f. 3,-4.

~ Diurnal Lepidoptera. 117

Herbst thus renames Junonia Lavinia, Cr., on account

of the nearly contemporaneous Pap. Lavinia, F., which

= Victorina Steneles, var.

154. Pap. Craupia, p. 264, t. 226, f. 3, 4.

Copied from Schulzen’s figures of Agrias Claudia in

the ‘ Naturforscher.’

15%. Par. Inis, L., p. 268, ¢. 226, f. 5, 63 t. 227,

f1,.2:

The first figures represent A. Ilia, ¢ ; the second

(given as A. Jris, 9) the true male of A. Iris.

Vol. 9. By Herbst, 1798.

9. Pap. Nina, p. 30, t. 233, f. 1, 2.

Closely allied to, if not identical with, Mesosemia for-

-mosa, Hew.

49, Pap. Apouiinus, p. 156, t. 250, f. 5-8.

Copied from Engramelle, and properly named for the

first time.

11. Par. Davntvs, p. 184, t. 256, f. 1, 2.

Huptoieta Hegesia, 2 , Cr.

12. Pap. Lavpontvs, p. 186, t. 256, f. 3, 4.

Not distinct from Atella Phalanta, Dr., figured on the

same plate.

14. Par. Craustius, p. 189, t. 257, f. 3, 4.

Euptoieta Claudia, Cr. Name changed on account of

Agrias Olaudia, Schulz.

16. Pap. Gerzius, p. 193, t. 258, f. 1-4.

Hypanis Ilithyia, Dr., var. Polinice, Stoll in Cram.

The name is changed because Cramer is said to have

previously employed it for another species; but this

seems to be a mistake.

Vol. 10. By Herbst, 1800.

39. Pap. Finaat, p. 92, t. 270, f. 1-3.

A Scandinavian form of Argynnis Euphrosyne = Dia

Lapponica, Esp., t. 108, f. 5.

40. Pap. Ossranvs, p. 98, t. 270, f. 4, 5.

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—pParT 1, (MAY.) K

118° Mr. W. F. Kirby on Jablonsky and Herbst’s

4l. Pap. Tomyris, p. 102, t. 270, f. 6, 7.

Both these are forms of Argynnis Aphirape, Hibn.

42. Pap. Marruisa, p. 105, t.°270, f. 8, 9.

Pap. Arsilache, Hibn., Beitr. I. t. 1, f. A, a, b; Pap.

Cybele, Hiibn., l. c. text p.7,= Argynnis Selene, var.

43. Pap. Rinatpvus, p. 108, t. 271, f. 1-4.

Under this name, Herbst has inauspiciously united the

Pap. Thalia, of Hiibner, and that of Esper, which repre-

sent similar accidental varieties of Argynnis Huphrosyne

and A. Selene respectively.

57. Pap. Trivia, p. 173, t. 276, f. 1-4.

The figures represent Melitea Cynthia, W. V.

62. Pap. Antigonus, p. 212, t. 278, f. 5-8.

-This is the true M. Trivia, W. V.

67. Par. ParTuenny, p. 238, t. 283, f. 1-4.

As Borkhausen (I. p. 53) expressly refers to Esper’s

Athalia minor, copied by Herbst, as his Parthenie, it ap-

pears to me doubtful whether we ought not to consider

these the typical figures, instead of quoting Borkhausen’s

2nd vol., p. 194, against the first (as Staudinger has

done in his recent catalogue), unless the description is

very clear; and I believe it has often been disputed.

7. Pap. Esra, p. 260, t. 285, f. 4-6.

Amblypodia Helius, Cr. (201 F, G). Cramer figures

a totally distinct species, also as Helius, a few plates

before; and hence Herbst has justly changed the name.

12. Par. Hyzassvus, p. 266, t. 286, f. 7-8.

This name will take precedence of Huchylas, Hubn.,

for Plebeius Hylas, St., nec W. V.

15. Pap. Petorvs, p. 270, t. 287, f. 5, 6.

As Pap. Pelops, St., is considered=his Thecla Caranus,

the name Pelopus is superfluous, although two other

butterflies bore the name Pelops before this.

32. Pap. Cyiuarissus, p. 297, t. 291, f. 3, 4.

Thecla Cyllarus, Cr., nec Plebeius Cyllarus, Rott.

39. Pap. Sirenissa, p. 306, t. 292, f. 7.

Pap. Silenus, St.,=Thecla Phaleros, L.; and therefore

did not require a new name.

Diurnal Lepidoptera. 119

48. Pap. Eryssus, p. 316, t. 294, f. 3.

If it be thought necessary to change the name of Thecla

Brix, Cr. (nec Deudorix Hryx, L.), Herbst’s name has

priority over Tyrrhenus, Hiibn.

Vol. 11. By Herbst, 1804.

78. Pap. Ameria, p. 26, t. 300, f. 3, 4.

Thecla Aftolus, Sulz.

79. Pap. Amyntor, p. 27, t. 300, f. 5, 6.

Deudoriz Eryx, L.

88. Pap. Hestopus, F., p. 41, t. 302, f. 5-8.

Hypolycena Faunus, Dr.

89. Pap. Amor, F., p. 43, t. 302, f. 9, 10.

Herbst has rightly figured Pap. Triopas, St., under

this name,

95. Pap. Lincus, F., p. 56, t. 304, f. 7, 8.

Another figure of Thecla Aftolus, Sulz.

96. Par. Puiato, F., p. 58, t. 304, f. 9, 10.

Herbst has figured Plebeiws Celeno, Cr., as this species ;

but Donovan and Butler figure a very different insect as

Plato, F.

99. Pap. TeLicanus, Lang, p. 65, t. 305, f. 6-9.

Herbst was the first author to figure both sexes of this

species.

foe. “rar, Crass, P.;'p.'97,t-. 307, 128; 9:

Herbst figures Thecla Ilicis, ? , Hsp., under this name.

4, Pap. Cytiarvs, Rott., p. 172, t. 309, f. 7-9.

a.) eae. Dymus, p. 175, t. 309, F105, 11:

Herbst has figured the sexes of Plebeius Cyllarus as

distinct; the insect figured as Oyllarus, 3, 1s apparently

Plebeius Iolas, O.

6. Pap. Semraraus, p. 177; Pap. Acis, t. 310, f. 1-3.

12. Pap. Zacuaus, p. 195, t. 311, f. 9, 10.

Probably Plebeius Otis, F.

i3, Pav. Nanus, p. 197, t.o12,f.-7, 2.

Resembles Plebeius Ceraunus, 2, F.

K 2

120 Mr. W. F. Kirby on Lepidoptera.

40... “Par. 'Tusris,;p) 270} t0) 317,f7gi8e

Herbst figures Plebeius Palemon, St., in Cr., which is

not the true P. Tespis, L.

70. Pap. Aritss, p. 307, t. 322, f. 4.

Plebeius (?) Arius, Cr.

Herbst divides the Diurnal Lepidoptera into Equites

Troes and Achivi; Heliconii; Parnassii; Danai Candidi ;

Consules (Huplea, &c.); Nobiles (Kallima, Siderone,

&c.) ; Prefecti (Vanessa, &c.), Pretores (Satyrine) ;

Vestales (Mesosemia) ; Archontes (Limenitis, Hypolimnas,

&c.) ; Dictatores (Carous, Lethe); Milites (Argynnis

and allies); Hphori (tailed Lycenide) ; Cives (tailless

ditto) ; Rustici (Hesperide).

I am much indebted to Messrs. Butler and Hewitson

for mformation respecting several species mentioned

above ; and to the former for his having called my atten-

tion to the book as imperfectly quoted by authors.

VII. On the genus Acentropus. By J. W. Dunnine,

M.A., F.L.S., &e.

[Read 4th March, 1872.)

I wave to announce the capture of Acentropus almost 10

the heart of London, about a furlong from the Regent’s

Park canal. Between nine and ten o’clock one evening,

in the latter half of July, 1871, an insect attracted my

attention, chiefly by the peculiarity of its flight round the

lamp near which I was sitting; in colour and general

appearance it was insignificant enough, and might have

been a small Crambus ; but it had not the weak and vacil-

lating motion of a Crambus, for it flew with decision and

in circles, or rather semi-circles, alighting constantly on

the table for a moment, then flitting off to perform

another round. When it sat for an instant, the horizontal

and deltoid pose of the wings, and an indescribable sprawl!

of the legs, reminded me of Hydrocampa. I had not

recognized the insect as Acentropus, and it was only on

the following morning, when I had killed the specimen,

that I found out what it really was. But the living insect

was certainly to my eye a moth, and it produced upon

my mind the impression of a Cramboid Hydrocampa.

In 1791, Olivier gave a short description of what is

supposed to be our insect; he placed it in his third section

of the Order Neuroptera, and called it Phryganea wivea ;

at the same time he remarked, that the Phryganee form

a link between the Phalene and other four-winged insects.

Latreille followed Olivier, and apparently was acquainted

with P. nivea only from Olivier’s description.

In 1829, Stephens introduced into his ‘Systematic

Catalogue of British Insects,’ the name “ Acentria nivosa

(Ph. nivea, Oliv. ?)” and placed it in the Neuroptera,

amongst the Perlide. In the same year, Curtis in his

‘ Guide to the Arrangement of British Insects,’ introduced

the name Acentropus Garnonsii, as distinct from Acentria.

And in 1833, Stephens, in the second edition of his

‘Nomenclature,’ gave Zancle IHansoni as distinct from

Acentria nivosa. But there was no description of any of

these.

In 1834, in vol. xi. of ‘ British Entomology,’ Curtis

characterized the genus <Acentropus, and on pl. 497 he

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—ParT Il. (MAY.)

122 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

figured the male A. Garnonsii. He placed the genus in

the Order Trichoptera, fam. Phryganeide; but he re-

marked that, “‘so near an approach does Acentropus make

to the Lepidoptera, that if the palpi were broken off, it

would not be easy to decide to which Order it belonged,

whether to the Trichoptera or Lepidoptera. The mealy

texture of the insect might induce an opinion that it was

Trichopterous, whilst the contour and neuration of the

wings would be in favour of its relation to the Lepidop-

tera. The absence of a proboscis proves nothing, since

it is sometimes wanting in the Bombycide and other

groups. I do not, however, remember any instance

amongst the Lepidoptera in which the maxillary palpi are

strongly developed, and the labial absent; yet such

appears to be the case in Acentropus.”

In 1835, in the first volume of our ‘Transactions,’

Westwood, after examining the original specimens, iden-

tified Acentria nivosa with Acentropus Garnonsii, and

mated them with Zancle Hansoni as the female. And in

the same paper he pronounced the insect to belong to

the Lepidoptera, relying not only on the scales of the

wings, but particularly on the presence of the thoracic

tippets, and the bristle at the base of the hind-wing.

In 1836, Stephens, in his ‘ Illustrations,’ adopted West-

wood’s conclusion as to the identity of Acentria, Acen-

tropus, and Zancle, and united the three under the name

Acentropus niveus. It is manifest also that he thought

the genus belonged to the Lepidoptera, but ‘‘ having

completed the Lepidoptera,” he ‘ temporarily ” placed the

“ Acentropide”’ at the beginning of the Trichoptera,

*‘rather than omit all notice of this singular family.”

In 1840, Westwood, in his ‘ Introduction,’ returned to

the subject, and unhesitatingly placed Acentropus in the

Order Lepidoptera.

In 1843, Boitard mentioned Phryganea nivea, but he

simply reproduced (with a verbal alteration) the brief

description given by Latreille, and does not appear to

have known anything about the insect itself. In 1848,

Kolenati, and in 1852, Walker, rejected Acentropus from

Trichoptera, and referred it to the Lepidoptera.

In 1856, Brown again called attention to the Order to

which this genus belongs; and afterwards, in a paper

read before the Northern Entomological Society, having

Acentropus. 123

discovered the earlier stages, he said the pupa and pupa-

case were those of a moth. In 1857, Hagen pronounced

the insect to be truly Lepidopterous; and Newman

arrived at the same conclusion (Zool. p. 5629). In the

‘Entomologist’s Annual’ for 1858, Stainton figured Acen-

tropus niveus, as “‘ having been finally handed over by

the Neuropterists to the Lepidopterists.” In the same

year Kolenati again considered the question, and treated

the insect as an indubitable Lepidopteron. In 1859, the

genus was inserted in Stainton’s ‘Manual of British

Moths,’ but was omitted from Doubleday’s ‘ List of British

Lepidoptera.’ In 1860, Méschler described an Acentropus

latipennis, and sent it to Herrich-Schiffer to be figured

with other new Micro-Lepidoptera; in the following year

Herrich-Schiiffer figured it as such, and Staudinger and

Wocke included the genus in their Catalogue of Huropean

Lepidoptera.

In 1861, Scott renewed the enquiry “Is Acentropus

miveus a moth? or does it belong to the Phrygainide—

genus Chimarra?” M’Lachlan denied that it was a

Chimarra, but seemed at that time undecided whether it

was Lepidopterous or Trichopterous, perhaps near Seri-

costoma. Newman again expressed doubt, and demanded

further investigation. In 1862, Cooke again enquired,

“Does it belong to the Lepidoptera or the Phryga-

neina?” inclining to the former view ; the effect, how-

ever, of his discussion, was to make Newman retr ace his

“rash guess” * that the insect was Lepidopterous, and

“to leave the question as far off a solution as ever.”

In 1863, Brown devoted a chapter in ‘The Natural

History of Tutbury’ to the genus Acentropus ; as already

mentioned, he had discovered the larva and pupa, and

founding his conclusion mainly on the primary stages,

he considered it as no longer admitting of doubt that

the genus belongs to the Lepidoptera. Haliday also

(according to Brown) regarded the pupa and pupa-case

* One would suppose, from this expression, that Newman had himself

been the originator of the idea that Acentropus was Lepidopterous. In

truth, however, his ‘rash guess” was arrived at from an examination of

specimens transmitted by Brown (see Zool. 1857, p. 5629), whilst, for

more than twenty years previously, the Lepidopterous view had (as we

have seen) been advocated by Westwood, Kolenati, Walker, Brown, and

Hagen successively.

124 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

as conclusive. In 1865, Heinemann included the genus

in his ‘ Klein- Schmetterlinge ;’ ;? mm the same year,

M’Lachlan, having got the better of his former doubt,

spoke of A. niveus as one of “two species of Lepidoptera

erroneously described as Trichoptera;” and in 1868,

Brauer did not include Acentropus in his Verzeichniss

der bis jetzt bekannten Neuropteren im Sinne Linné’s”

(Verh. z.-b. Gesell, Wien. xviii. 359).

In 1867, Zeller, and in 1869, Nolcken, Speyer, de Graaf,

Snellen, and Tengstrém, all agreed in referring Acen-

tropus to the Lepidoptera, and Speyer went elaborately

into the question (Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1869, p. 400). He

examined the mouth most carefully, and confirmed West-

wood’s view, that the large 3-jointed palpi are the labial

and not the maxillary palpi (thereby removing the main

ground upon which Curtis rested) ; a pair of one-jointea

maxillary palpi are present, but very small,* attached at

the upper side of the base of the large palpi, and they

are mentioned by Kolenati as “‘ a brown tuft on the out-

side at the base of each palpus,” and by Westwood as

‘‘a pair of small lateral appendages of the palpi;” and a

pair of minute thread-like maxillee may also be detected.

The difficulty of a correct determination of the parts of

the mouth, in addition to the smallness and imperfect

development of the maxillz and maxillary palpi, depends

really upon the circumstance that they are placed un-

usually close to one another, and take their rise almost

at the same spot; it required careful examination to

make certain that, in fact, the base of the large palpi

occupied the nethermost place. Speyer also detected a

peculiar appendage to the fore-tibiz, which is found in

many Rhopalocera and most Heterocera, but so far as is

known, does not occur in any Trichoptera; he observes

that the tegule or scapule are large, and of the typical

Lepidopterous form ; he notes likewise the fixing appa-

ratus of the wings, the strong simple bristle of the hind-

wings, the erect hair-scales at the base of the fore-

wings on the underside, and the formation of the hinder

parts of the abdomen, which is quite similar to that

of many Lepidoptera, e. g. Sphingide. He concludes,

* M’Lachlan states (Intell. ix. 182) that in the female all the palpi

are rudimentary. This is scarcely correct; the labial palpi, though

smaller than in the male, are large in comparison with the maxillary,

and are accurately figured by Brown.

Acentropus. 125

* Acentropus is, then, a genuine Lepidopteron, with some

peculiarities no doubt, but having nothing contrary to

the character of the Order, and capable, without offence,

of being included in it, and only in the Lepidopterous

type. A rudimentary sucker, or even the entire absence

of a sucker, is not uncommon in moths, and the maxil-

lary threadlets of Acentropus have, in fact, a resemblance

to the aborted sucker of many other moths. Consider-

able development of the always 3-jointed labial palpi, in

contradistinction to the smallness of the maxillary palpi,

is the rule in Lepidoptera, and little or nothing can be

detected, in many moths, of the mandibles and the other

feeding apparatus. The only thing which, to my know-

ledge, occurs in the same fashion in no other part of the

Order, is the close approximation of the two pairs of

palpi to one another, the removal of the labial palpi up

to the base of the maxille and maxillary palpi. In all

other Lepidoptera which I have examined, the two pairs

of palpi are separated by a considerable interval, while

the labial palpi are placed much further back, on the

under-surface of the head. But this is the only important

thing which is peculiar to Acentropus, whilst the rest of

its organization collectively shows the Lepidopterous type,

and in some of its characteristic parts in a very pro-

nounced form. ‘Thus, the fastening of the wings, and

the tegulee, which occur in such perfection neither in the

Phryganeina nor in any other Order of msects. Then

the wing-veins, with their simple discoidal cell, the com-

plete covering of scales, and the appendages of the fore-

tibia. Moreover, the habit of the imago has nothing

Phryganeous about it, and it is, in fact, scarcely con-

ceivable, how people can have mistaken the Lepidopterous

nature of the creature. It cannot even be considered as

an approach of the Lepidopterous type to that of the

Phryganeina, as in the interest of Darwinianism I had

hoped, since it has with the latter group nothing in

common but the mode of life and the gill-bearing larva,

which is found in so typical a Lepidopteron as Paraponyx

stratiotata. Other families of moths, as the Psychide,

and especially the Tineina with long maxillary palpi,

above all, the Micropterygide, have much more essential

characters in common with the Phryganeina than Acen-

tropus has. The characteristic difference between Lepi-

doptera and Phryganeina hies in the totally different form

of the parts of the mouth, and these organs in Acentropus

in no way approach the type of the Phryganeina,”

126 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

In a subsequent paper, ‘ Zur Genealogie der Schmetter-

linge” (Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1870, p. 202) Speyer makes a

detailed comparison of the structure and development of

the Lepidoptera and Trichoptera, and again concludes

that Acentropus is a true moth, which recalls the Phry-

ganeina only by its aquatic and branchiiferous larva, whilst

the imago has at most but a superficial resemblance to

them, but has the typical character, both of wing and

body, of a moth, and even in that which distinguishes it

from other Lepidoptera, it does not approach the Phry-

ganeina, nor in that particular which is most conclusive,

the formation of the parts of the mouth.

After these quotations from Speyer, it seems almost

surplusage to add, that in 1870, Milliére figured Acentro-

pus in his ‘Iconographie de Lepidopteres,’ and Knages

included it in his List of Lepidoptera; and that in 1871,

Ritsema, in his historical retrospect of the genus, pub-

lished in the ‘Tijdschrift voor Entomologie,’ unhesita-

tingly considered the insect to be a moth.

But in 1872, Newman returns to the subject, and after

informing us that ‘it is nothing more than a conventional

idea, or sometimes a convenient assumption,” that wing-

scales are confined to Lepidoptera, he adds, that ‘ the

assumption is-utilized now and then to set up some hobby,

such for instance as the Lepidopterous nature of Acentria,

which assumption remains standing only until some one

of more extended or more careful powers of observation, or

more skilled in logical deductions, knocks it down again ”

(Entom. vi. 10).

We all know, that every periodical has a “some one”

who is necessarily, and ew officio, of more extended and more

careful powers of observation, and more skilled in logical

deductions, than any other one who presumes to differ

from him. But making due allowance for the “ conven-

tional idea” of the omniscience, and the “ convenient

assumption” of the infallibility of editors in general, (and

speaking in all good-humour, and with every respect for

my friend) I cannot characterize this sentence otherwise

than as editorial “bounce.” It was no part of my plan

to have given the preceding sketch, but I have been led

to do so by reading the remarks of the editor of ‘The

Entomologist,’ which I have just quoted. Of course,

Newman may be right, and all the world wrong; and

equally of course, if Newman is wrong, he is entitled to

retain his own opinion; but at the risk of repeating a

Acentropus. 127

thrice-told tale, I have thought it worth while to show

that, so far as published authority goes, there is an over-

whelming preponderance of opinion against him, and that

those who are against him have given very good reasons

for their opinions. We are not told by whom the “ con-

venient assumption” has been made; and though doubt-

less the presence of the wing-scales has been alleged as

one ground, and an important one, for regarding Acen-

tropus as a moth, yet it is but one circumstance among

many, and it seems to me inaccurate to say, that any one

has “utilized the assumption to set up the hobby” in

question, for no author has relied exclusively or even

mainly on the presence of wing-scales, but everyone has

placed far greater dependence on other (less popular and

more technical) characters. The tippets and wing-bristle

originally set up the hobby. The passage about extended

and careful observation and skill in logical deduction,

leads one to enquire, Can Newman, when he penned it,

have read the papers of Speyer ? :

Let me ask, what is to happen when the “ standing

assumption” is “ knocked down again?” ‘The assump-

tion is, that wing-scales are confined to Lepidoptera.

Let us get rid of that assumption (if anybody has made

it), and let us assume the contrary, that wing-scales are

not confined to Lepidoptera. From the premises, (1),

Acentropus has wing-scales, and (2), wing-scales are not

confined to Lepidoptera, are we expected to draw the

conclusion that Acentropus is not Lepidopterous? Iam

not “ skilled in logical deductions,” but it seems to me,

that when the assumed assumption has been knocked

down again, the argument in favour of the Lepidopterous

conclusion remains untouched.

But probably it is not the “assumption,” but the

“hobby” which is intended to be pugilistically dealt

with. Let us, then, look for a moment at the arguments

by which the “hobby” has been hitherto ‘knocked

down.”’? Newman’s reasons are given at p. 8216 of ‘The

Zoologist,’ and appear to be four innumber :—(1), “ scales

far more like those of Lepidoptera occur on the elytra of

a thousand beetles;” (2), the thoracic tippets do not

“ obtain throughout” the Lepidoptera; (3), the wing-

bristle “tends as much to unite Acentropus with the

Hymenoptera as with the Lepidoptera;” and (4), the

characters in which the pupa of a moth differs from that

128 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

of a Phryganea require to be more distinctly pointed out.

Westwood has dealt with these grounds seriwtim (Proc.

Ent. Soc. 1862, p. 101); and, so far as I can discover,

these are the only reasons which Newman has published

for doubting that Acentropus is a moth. As suggesting

points for further examination and explanation, the four

propositions are harmless enough ; but to suppose that the

enunciation of them has “‘ knocked down the hobby,” or

that by the repetition of them, the hobby will be

“‘ knocked down again,” is surely a miscalculation of the

strength of the arguments. J understand the question

to be “Is Acentropus lepidopterous, or is it trichop-

terous?” By the first proposition, the presence of wing-

scales is admitted; it can scarcely be contended that

their presence is an argument against the insect being

lepidopterous, and it can hardly be intended to suggest

that Acentropus is coleopterous ; but unless such a sug-

gestion is intended, the proposition is wide of the mark:

there is no question about beetles, and to answer the

inquiry “ Lepidoptera or Trichoptera? ” by saying “ It

is like Coleoptera” is no answer at all. Again, it

can hardly be intended to suggest that Acentropus is

hymenopterous; but unless such a suggestion is intended,

the third proposition is only throwing dust in the eyes,

and diverting attention from the real question, ‘‘ moth

or caddis-fly ?”” But the second proposition is, perhaps,

the most curious of all: from the premises, (1), Acentropus

has tippets, and (2), some Lepidoptera have not tippets,

it can scarcely be argued, much less ‘‘ logically deduced,”

that Acentropus is not lepidopterous.

Newman concludes (Zool. p. 8217) by indicating “the

proper mode of proceeding in such a case as this,” and

finally asks for a ‘‘verdict solely on the evidence.” I

have only had an opportunity of examining the imago;

but, bearing in mind, that “its mouth, wing-rays, thorax

and legs should have especial care bestowed on them,”

the result of my own examination has been to satisfy me

that itis a moth. The earlier stages confirm this view;

the eggs are not enclosed in a jelly-like substance, as is

usual with Trichoptera; and the larva and pupa have

nothing of the trichopterous type about them. The mouth

and head of the larva of Acentropus are unlike any known

caddis-worm; whilst the mummy-like pupa is totally

different from the pupz of Trichoptera, with their free

legs and antenne, and their strong mandibles, with which

Acentropus. 129

they gnaw their way out of their case. And though it is

quite true that further details are required to give a com-

plete ‘‘life-history of Acentropus,” 1 have no hesitation

in saying that, deciding on the evidence now forthcoming,

the insect is a moth.

There is one point to which I may here allude—the

presence or absence of ocelli in Acentropus. Curtis says

“‘ocelli two, placed behind the antenne,” and his fig. P.

shows the ocellus plainly enough. ‘ Ocelli two,” re-

echoes Stephens.* In Westwood’s figure of the head

(Introd. u. fig. 113, No. 12) there is an indication of

what I take to be an ocellus. And Kolenati says, “ two

ocelli behind and between the insertion of the antenna

on the top of the head,” and his fig. 4 shows them dis-

tinctly (Wien. Ent. Mon. 1858, pl. vii.).

On the other hand, Brown found no ocelli; Heinemann

gives ‘ohne Ocellen” as one of the characters of the

genus; and Nolcken and Speyer searched for them in

vain.

I was unable to detect any ocelli in my own specimen.

But in the autumn of last year, M’Lachlan, for my

satisfaction, subjected several specimens to microscopic.

examination ; after denuding the head of its scaly clothing,

the result was that, on one specimen, he, Douglas, and I

saw something—a kind of metallic disc, to all appearance

—which may have been an ocellus. But it was not be-

hind the antennez, or between the antenne; it was on

the outside of the antenna, in a depression or excavation

of the basal joint. I believe Douglas and M’Lachlan

were satisfied that it was an ocellus: for myself, I doubt.

In the Lepidoptera, there are either two ocelli or none ;

in the Trichoptera, three or none. If, then, the positive

evidence in favour of the existence of two ocelli be

accepted, we have another reason for referring Acentropus

to the Lepidoptera, and not to the Trichoptera. On the

other hand, if the weight of evidence be held to disprove

the existence of any ocelli, their absence affords no argu-

ment either way.

* But there is strong intrinsic evidence that Stephens’ description was

not drawn up from personal examination, but was copied from Curtis’s.

A word is varied here and there, just sufficient to escape being a mere

transcript; but the phraseology produces (in my mind, at least) convic-

tion, that one description was taken from the other.

130 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

Of course, the generic name Acentropus was given to

the insect in allusion to the supposed absence of tibial

spurs. But according to Nolcken, Acentropus is a mis-

nomer, the legs possessing spines, which render the

name inapplicable. Under the microscope, he found at

the end of the mid-tibia one, and on the hind-tibia, not

far from the middle, one, and at the end another, small

spine. All previous authors had agreed in describing

the tibize as without spurs or spines, and Speyer (whose

specimens were sent to him by Nolcken) in his first paper

(Stett. Zeit. xxx. 405) spoke of the spur-less legs; but

subsequently (xxxi. 222, n.) he says that he has con-

firmed Nolcken’s statement, but the spurs are minute

and fragile. For myself, I see, but only on one or two

specimens, very small and very short spurs.* But as

between Lepidoptera and Trichoptera, how stands the

argument, so far as the armature of the tibiz is con-

cerned? If the middle and hind-tibie are spurred (as

must now be admitted to be the fact), this is the rule in

one Order as much as in the other; but if they were not

spurred, this would be as much at variance with the rule

in one Order as in the other. And either the presence

or the absence of spurs leaves the question unanswered.

A few words next as to the various positions in the Order

Lepidoptera which have been assigned to Acentropus.

Stephens spoke of the T'ineide as “‘ the only family to

which it can be allied ;” and in 1840, Westwood placed

it provisionally in that family, between the genera Huspi-

lopteryx and Gracilaria. Five years later, in his ‘ British

Moths,’ we find the genus at the very end of the Tineide,

following the Trichopteroid genus Hriocephala (Microp-

teryx), Huspilopteryx and Gracilaria, and coming imme-

diately before the Pterophoride ; but it is noted, at the

same time, that it is ‘‘ probably nearer to some of the

Hyponomeutide.” In 1848, Kolenati expressed an opinion

that Acentropus belonged to the Pyralidina, and the pupa

and habit of the larva at first led Brown also to consider

it allied to Hydrocampa, an opinion which he subsequently

changed. In 1859, Stainton placed it in the family Hy-

* When this paper was read, Westwood exhibited drawings of Acen-

tropus, made in 1860, from specimens given him by Brown; and these

drawings fully confirm Nolcken and Speyer as to the presence of the

minute spines on the mid- and hind-tibie.

Acentropus. 131

drocampide ;* and Hagen and Zeller appear to have

regarded it as belonging to the Orambina. In 1861,

Staudinger and Wocke adopted the “ china-mark” theory,

and catalogued the genus between Cataclysta and Nym-

phula; and Westwood thought it “‘ most nearly allied to

the family Crambide.” In 1862, Cooke reverted to the

Tineine hypothesis, and suggested its affinity to Chima-

bacche, Hpigraphia, and Hwapate.t In 1863, Brown

arrived at the conclusion that its true place is amongst

the Bombycina, but that for an insect altogether so ano-

malous, a special family must be constituted. In 1865,

Heinemann included the genus in the Botide, placing it

at the end of the family, immediately after Hydrocampa,

Paraponyx, and Cataclysta; and Zeller, in reviewing

Heinemann, agreed that its proper position is between

these aquatic moths and the Chilonide, In 1869, Teng-

strém catalogued the genus between Cataclysta and

Nymphula; de Graaf and Snellen placed it in Pyralidina ;

and Speyer, recognizing the fact that the insect stands

heterogeneously in the Botidew, as indeed everywhere,

proposed that it should rank as a separate family between

the Botide and Chilonide. In 1870, Knaggs catalogued

the ‘‘ Acentropide”? between the Hydrocampide and

Botyde; and Mailliére figured Acentropus as belonging to

the Crambina. Finally, Staudinger and Wocke, in 1871

(merging the Crambina in the Pyralidina), placed the

family Acentropodide between the Pyralidide (of which

the last genera are Hydrocampa, Paraponyx, and Cata-

clysta) on the one hand, and the Chilonide and Crambide

on the other hand.

Thus, we have a Tineine, a Pyralidine or Crambine,

and a Bombycine view; and, of course, there is some-

thing to be said in favour of each. I believe it is not

doubted that Micropteryx belongs to the Tineina, and,

perhaps, of all moths, that genus is the most like the

Trichoptera; it seems natural, therefore, that Acentropus

and Micropteryz should not be placed far apart, though,

in fact, their technical characters are considerably dif-

ferent. Whether Westwood considered Acentropus to

* In 1858, the present writer, in a letter to Stainton, enquired whether

Acentropus should not come near Hydrocampa. On the 13th of March,

1858, Stainton replied, ‘‘ Acentropus will probably be placed near Hydro-

campa, but I have not yet definitively settled its position.”

+ Heinemann transfers Exapate from the Tineina to the Tortricina.

132 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

connect the Tineina and Pterophorina, I do not know; it

may be fancy on my part, but I do fancy I detect an

affinity between Acentropus and Agdistis. The approxi-

mation to the Hyponomeutide does not appear to me so

manifest ; I suppose the recurved or drooping palpi are

the principal thing relied on; but in Knagg’s ‘ Cabinet

List’ the Hyponomeutide are the next family to the

Micropterygide. Again, there is plausibility in the sug-

gestion of relationship between the phryganoid Acentropus

and Chimabacche phryganella ; next to the Hpigraphude

or Chimabacchide, the Psychide are also placed by those

who regard that family as T'ineina, and it scarcely needs

to be added that the Psychide are very like Phryganeina

in some respects, and have, indeed, been classified with

Neuroptera; moreover, the existence of wingless or but

partially- winged females in Acentropus, is a feature

which that genus possesses in common both with Chima-

bacche and Psyche. So far as I am aware, Brown is the

only author who has referred the genus to the Bombycina ;

it is to this group that the Psychide are relegated by

those who expel them from the Tineina, and Brown would

place them in the same section of the Bombycina ; but

the families with which he suggests that Acentropus has

the nearest affinity are the Hepialide and Zenzeride,

agreeing with the former “in the general shape of its

larvee, in the absence of spines on the legs of the imago

[see, however, p. 130], and in the substitution for them

of hair, in the want of a labrum, and in the almost total

absence of maxille;” and with the Zenzeride ‘‘in the

shape of larva, small development of maxille, and general

form of the palpi.” On the other hand, the general

appearance of the imago is strongly suggestive of a

Crambus, but the retrorse palpi and the neuration of the

wings do not agree with those of the Crambide ; whilst

the aquatic habit of the insect, the mode of life, and the

metamorphoses, are so plainly indicative of affinity to

Hydrocampa, that I willingly go with the current of recent

opinion, and recognize the true place of the Acentropodidee

to be where Staudinger and Wocke have placed them,

that is to say, in the Pyralidina, leading up to the Chilo-

nidee and Crambide.*

* Knaggs suggests that the Pterophorina should follow next after the

Pyralidina (Cab. List Lepid. p. 11). If this be so, it brings Agdistis into

close proximity with Acentropus.

Acentropus. 133

Let us now bring together, as a connected narrative,

the scattered observations on the habits of Acentropus.

Olivier and Latreille say nothing about its mode of

life, but from its having been described as a Phryganea,

we may infer that it was found in the neighbourhood of

water. ‘ Found on willows,” near a canal, was Stephens’

account ; “in an osier bed,” was Brown’s first report.

Kolenati, however, in 1846, discovered that the imago

affected certain species of Potamogeton, and suspected

that the pond-weeds were the food-plant of the larva;

informed by Haliday of Kolenati’s observations, Brown,

who in 1855 and 1856 captured the moth flying over the

river Trent, was enabled to find pupz in 1857, and in the

following year to obtain both larve and pupe.

Previously to this, Curtis and Dale had found, at Glan-

ville’s Wootton, what they supposed to be the eggs of

Acentropus ; they were exhibited at the Meeting of this

Society on the 4th of September, 1854, and are described

in the ‘ Proceedings’ as “a large mass of white and very

elongated eggs.” The oviposition was not actually seen,

but the eggs were found at a spot where Acentropus

abounded, and near a female specimen which was cap-

tured, and exhibited at the same meeting; and there

cannot, I think, be any reasonable doubt that they were

really the eggs of Acentropus. I suppose these eggs

have gone to the Antipodes with the rest of Curtis’s col-

lection; but Hagen saw them, and has described them

as “a number of white roundish eggs, lain thickly

together on a Potamogeton leaf.” There is, however, a

discrepancy between the two accounts as to the shape of

the eggs. In 1861, Knaggs had some eggs laid on his

setting boards, by specimens captured at Hampstead ;

he described them as having “a most striking resem-

blance to those of Paraponya stratiotalis.” Herrich-

Schiffer, in the same year, figured the female specimen

on which Moéschler based the species A. latipennis, and

he depicts her with a string of eggs at her tail; M’Lachlan

has shown me one of his Hampstead examples with a

similar string, and Knaggs has a continental A. latipennis

with eggs attached. In these cases, the colour of the

egg is dirty-white, or yellowish; and the shape is

‘** roundish,” rather than “‘ very elongate.”

The larva is of a light green colour, and like those of

Hydrocampa, Paraponyxz, and Cataclysta, it lives on

TRANS. ENT. soc. 1872.—parT II, (MAY.) L

134 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

aquatic plants below the surface; it has gills, and lives

freely in the water. It has been figured by Brown. It

appears to feed exclusively on the pond-weeds, but has

been found on several species; thus Kolenati (who, how-

ever, was acquainted with the imago only) mentions

Potamogeton heterophyllus and perfoliatus; Brown and

Heinemann mention P. pectinatus and perfoliatus ; Ritsema

mentions P. crispus; and Millicre mentions P. pectinatus

and lucens. When fully fed, in June or July, the larvee

may be found ‘‘ in silken cocoons, which are strengthened

by small pieces of the leaves incorporated longitudinally

in the fabric, and which are placed in the submerged axils”

of the thread-like leaves of the Potamogeton. Brown

found only fully-fed larvee, but Ritsema and Reutti found

them in various stages of growth.

The pupze are described by Brown as “ of the masked

character, and the external case enables one to see

clearly which will produce males and which females; ”

both the male and female pupz are figured by him, and

exhibit three remarkably prominent spiracles on each side.

To acquire the pup, Knaggs recommends dragging the

stream or pond with a water-net, where Potaumogeton grows,

examining it on the shore for the small silken cocoons.

The imago appears in June, July, and August; though

not continuously for the whole period. During the three

months mentioned, the insect may be found in all its four

stages of ego, larva, pupa, and imago; and it would seem

that about ten months of the year (including the winter

months, as with Hydrocampa and Paraponyx) are passed

in the larval state, and about one month in the pupa.

The male imago is much more common, or more com-

monly observed, than the female ; occasionally it is found

in swarms. Kolenati captured forty-two specimens in

the Neva, all males; Nolcken went to the same locality,

and took something like 150, again all males. Zeller

had it in numbers from Pomerania, but only of the male

sex. Hagen had seen it in numbers, but could not

remember a single female taken in Prussia. Dale, in the

last letter I had from him (within three months of his

death, when the veteran entomologist was over eighty),

wrote “the males were in great abundance, the females very

rare.” Brown, in a recent letter, writes ‘‘ I have seen, I

should almost say, hundreds of males on the wing ata time.

Ritsema took fifty specimens near Haarlem, all males.

Unless disturbed, they are inactive by day, but fly

briskly in the evening over the surface of water. Kole-

~

Acentropus. 135

nati found them sitting sluggishly on the Potamogeton,

close to the water, the majority on the flowers and young

seeds; when active, they ran on the surface of the water.

According to Dale, ‘‘ they flew nearly on the surface of

the water, sporting about in various directions.” Brown

found them quietly sitting on leaves, or other objects

which protruded from the stream, whilst others flew

slowly, or, as he elsewhere expressed it, were “‘ skipping

along over the surface ” of the Trent. Reutti’s observa-

tion is, that the male flies always close to and on the

water, by day only involuntarily, but by night briskly.

M’Lachlan records that between eight and nine, p.m., in

June, “ they began flying rather rapidly over the surface

of the water, and close to it, occasionally coming on to

the wet mud.” Knaggs mentions that ‘it skims along

the surface of the water,” but although the usual habit is

to fly close to the water, he has “‘ occasionally seen it

mount perpendicularly into the air, rising higher and

higher, until lost to sight.” M’ Lachlan tells me that he too

saw the male thus mount into theair, but only when caught

by a current of wind, so that it was an involuntary act.

Boyd tells me that he observed the females to fly, as a

rule, at a greater height above the water than the males,

Nolcken found them, either sitting drowsily on floating

pieces of Potamogeton or other objects, often two or

three so close together that at first he thought they

were in coitu, or fluttermg about in small circles close to

the surface, then raising themselves a few inches above

it, but descending again immediately, so that their feet

were almost always touching the water. Barrett “ found

some faggots sunk with stones in one corner of a pond,

leaving some of the twigs above water ; and on the under-

side of these twigs niveus swarmed, sometimes clustered

four or six in a bunch; they were very sluggish, and, if

knocked off a twig, only buzzed along the surface of the

water till they found another.” Ritsema describes them

as sitting by day on the stems of plants close to the

water, and when disturbed, coming quickly to rest again,

but in the evening, flying nimbly in large circles over

the surface, touching the water itself, and settling but

rarely. Corbin describes the flight as most peculiar, “as

it never seems to leave the surface of the water, but

swiftly flutters its tiny wings, and in the dusk of the

evening looks almost as if it was swimming about here

and there; ... . but in the day-time it will be found

L 2

136 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

settled on the underside of leaves, &c., close to the

water’s edge.” Ihave already mentioned that it was the

circular flight of the insect (a male) round a lamp and

over the surface of a table, which first attracted my atten-

tion to the specimen which gave rise to this paper;

de Graaf captured two males which were similarly attracted

to a lamp and performed their antics on a tablecloth ;

and Stainton, some years ago, took a female specimen at

Lewisham which flew to a gaslight fixed outside his

house. Brown, Dale, and Barrett all mention to have

seen many dead specimens floating on the pond-weed, or

on the surface of the water; and during the daytime,

Knaggs and M’Lachlan found that the living specimens

might readily be fished out from off the Potamogeton, by

means of a shallow net with a long handle.

The form originally named Zancle Hansoni by Stephens

has been already mentioned as the female ; this form has

fully developed wings, and it was not until 1854 that the

existence of an apterous form of the female of Acentropus,

or one with only rudimentary wings, was established.

Simultaneously with the above-mentioned discovery of

the eggs, Curtis and Dale found this second form of

female ; and the event is somewhat meagrely reported in

our ‘ Proceedings’ as follows: “Mr. Curtis exhibited

specimens of Acentropus Garnonsii from Glanville’s Woot-

ton, including the apterous female,”’—as if the apterous

female, instead of being a novelty, was a familiar creature.

The Dorsetshire females (as I was informed by Dale)

were not absolutely apterous, but had rudiments of wings.

In 1858, Brown found at Burton-on-Trent a pupa from

which an apterous female emerged ; the Burton females

(as figured by Brown) were absolutely apterous, without

a vestige of wing. In 1860, Méschler* described A. lati-

pennis from a female example from Southern Russia,

which was amply winged; and his description mainly

consists of a comparison with another winged insect

which he supposed to be the female of A. niveus.t In

* Brown (Nat. Hist. Tutbury, p. 401) erroneously attributes the descrip-

tion of A. latipennis to Kolenati.

+ Upon this Brown remarks, that ‘it is manifest the insect he describes

as A. niveus is of the male sex; the comparative characters are, there-

fore, useless.”” In other words, Méschler’s comparison only shows the

distinction between the sexes. I do not quite see, however, why the

insect with which the 9 latipennis is compared, may not have been a

winged female of the Zancle form.

Acentropus. 137

1865, Heinemann described the female of the Acentropus

from the Bodensee (Lake of Constance) as having very

short pomted rudiments of wings. And in 1871, Ritsema

bred from a pupa found near Haarlem a female with

rudimentary wings.

In 1859, Hagen remarked, “‘it is a matter of interest

that it appears to have two forms of female, one with

short, the other with long upper-wings; of both forms,

Stainton’s and Stephens’ collections contained speci-

mens.” I suppose the ‘‘form with short wings,” refers

to the specimens with rudimentary wings, captured by

Curtis and Dale at Glanville’s Wootton: for so far as lL

can gather, the Dorsetshire specimens are the only known

British specimens that have rudimentary wings, and

Brown’s Burton specimens are the only known specimens

that are absolutely apterous. The female specimens in

Stainton’s collection are all fully winged, and as Stephens

died in 1852, before the apterous form was discovered,

I fancy that Hagen, writing from memory, must have

erroneously attributed to Stainton’s and Stephens’ col-

lections what he actually saw in Curtis’s. Stephens’

collection is now incorporated with the general collection

of British insects in the British Museum, and Acentropus

has been transferred from Neuroptera to Lepidoptera ;

that collection contains four females of Acentropus, but

all are fully-winged.* In addition to the British Museum

and Stainton’s collections, I have been permitted to

examine those of Bond, Boyd, Knaggs, M’Lachlan,

Stevens and Wormald; they contain none but fully

winged females; in short, I have been unable, in any of

the London collections, to procure a sight of the apterous

or partially apterous form; and Westwood does not

possess it at Oxford. Dale (in litt.) described his rudi-

mentary female, as “rather shrivelled, and I should say

was merely undeveloped;” and Nolcken was at first dis-

posed to think that the rudimentary wings were attribu-

table to accidental crippling, and were merely cases of

stunted growth: but Brown, though at first surprised to

see an apterous specimen, says that ‘‘it was subsequently

* M’Lachlan assures me that he remembers to have formerly seen an

apterous, or nearly apterous, female of Acentropus in the British Museum,

thus corroborating Hagen. I made two visits to the Museum last autumn

in order to see it, but it was not to be found.

138 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

discovered to be very easy to separate the female pupa *

from those of the male, by the external characters.” I

think, therefore, that we must take it to be a fact, that

the wingless or stumpy-winged female is a natural form.

The mode of coition of the winged female does not

appear to have been observed ; but Reutti, as recorded

by Heinemann, reports that the wingless female swims

on her back under the water by night, that coition takes

place in the water, the female laying hold of the male,

and drawing him down with her.

Milliére and Peyerimhoff (Mill. Iconog. im. 161) are

sceptical as to this, and, no doubt, it is, at first sight,

improbable. But let us see if there be not some corro-

borative evidence.

In the first place, be it remembered, that the pupa is

under water, so that the moths, both male and female,

are born in the water. Then Kolenati says, ‘‘ I saw one

female dive, and crawl down the stem of the Potamo-

geton,” and I shall, hereafter, have occasion to show that

this was, in all probability, a winged female. Ritsema

expressly mentions that the males settled on the water,

* or on floating plants below.” Brown saw the male “ on

one occasion deliberately enter the water, and after

creeping down a pond-weed stem for an inch or two, it

emerged again with unwetted wings; this act was pro-

bably done in pursuit of the virgin female ;” and again,

referring probably to this same occasion, Brown writes

(in litt., 5th Oct., 1871) ‘* I have also seen the male deli-

berately enter the water, which must, I should think, be

for no other purpose than that of searching for the apter-

ous female.” M’Lachlan informs me, that at Hampstead

(where the only females captured were winged females) , he

frequently noticed that specimens drawn below the surface,

either on the net, or on patches of floating weeds, came

up again none the worse for their submersion. Barrett

reports that, if accidentally immersed, they ‘‘ took no

notice whatever of the ducking.’ And Corbin says “ it

is truly a water insect, as often only its head is above the

surface.” It seems, indeed, to be common ground with

all who have had frequent opportunities of observing it,

that the male is constantly on, or (at least partially) in, the

* Westwood’s drawings (mentioned at p. 130, n.) corroborate this.

»

Acentropus. 139

water. And Speyer has pointed out that severai of the

peculiarities of the male appear to have for their object

the facilitating a short sojourn and an onward movement

in the water. The front of the body, he says, is rela-

tively very strongly built; the wings are narrow,

pointed, firmly fastened, almost fin-shaped, and when at

rest bent backwards, and the scales lie smoothly on, and

are fixed uncommonly fast; and, finally, the large and

long palpi would be a hindrance to motion under water

if they had extended forwards instead of being directed

backwards. In short, Speyer explains the peculiarities in

mode of life and organization of Acentropus, by regarding

it as the representative of an older branch of the original

stock of moths, the other members of which branch have

disappeared ; the primitive insect forms must be sought

in water, the atavi of the Lepidoptera rose from the

water to the land, and adapted themselves to terrestrial

and aerial life; and Acentropus, the most distinctly

aquatic of all known moths, is, from this point of view,

the primeval type, the nearest extant representative of

the grand ancestor of all the Lepidoptera.

But to return from the region of speculation to the

domain of fact, I say that, knowing what we do know of

the habits of Acentropus, I have no great difficulty im

accepting Reutti’s account of the apterous female, or

rather of the female with rudimentary wings, for it is of

the intermediate form that Reutti speaks. And I goa

step further—for if the winged male can exist under water,

whether he voluntarily, as Brown thinks, descends like

Orpheus in quest of his Eurydice, or whether, as Reutti

records, he is dragged down by the female, like Hylas

by the water-nymph, there can be no reason why the

winged female should not have the same habit as her

unwinged sister; it is less unlikely that the winged and

unwinged should be two forms of the female of the same

insect, having the same sexual habit, than that they

should be the females of two different insects with males

undistinguishable by the eye, one of which indulges in

aerial, and the other in aquatic, copulation.

This brings me to the question which it is the main

object of this paper to open for discussion ; namely, how

many known species are there of the genus Acentropus ?

For six and twenty years after, Westwood mated Acen-

tropus and Zancle, but one species of the genus was

140 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

recognized. At the end of 1858, Kolenati published an

account of his capture at St. Petersburg twelve years

before, and having detected a minute difference in the

shape of the wing-scales* from the shape as represented

in Westwood’s figure (Introd. ii. 409), he says that he

attributes the disagreement to the wood-cut; ‘were this

not the case, we must announce our forty-two examples

as a new species, and name it A. Newe,”t but he did, in

fact, announce his Neva specimens as A. wiveus ; and it

was not until 1860 that the second species A. latipennis

was described by Méschler (and figured by Herrich-

Schiiffer in 1861). In 1863, Brown came to the conclu-

sion that, under the name of A. niveus, at least three

species were confounded, (1) <A. niveus=Garnonsii of

Curtis, (2) A. Hansoni, and (3) A. Neve, of which it was

thought probable latipennis would prove to be the female.

In 1869, Nolcken, after discussing the subject at some

length, remarked (Stett. Zeit. xxx. 279) that the separa-

tion of A. niveus into several species ‘‘ rests upon the

supposition that all the characters given in the different

descriptions really exist in nature, and will stand exami-

nation. But it is not so; for after careful and close

scrutiny of the specimens, I have found many erroneous

statements, particularly in Kolenati’s description and

figure of A. Neve ;”? and when, towards the conclusion

of his paper (p. 282) he wrote, that the characters upon

which A. niveus was to be divided into several species

“have for the most part not been verified, and it has not

been my fortune, by way of compensation, to find other

* Not a difference between the outline of the wings, as Brown puts it

(Nat. Hist. Tutbury, p. 401), judging, doubtless, from Kolenati’s figure,

which is erroneous.

+ In the case of Bardell vy. Pickwick, in Dickens’ Reports, the following

occurs :—

‘“What’s your name, sir?” enquired the judge.

“Sam Weller, my lord,” replied that gentleman.

‘Do you spell it with a V or a W?” enquired the judge.

“That depends upon the taste and fancy of the speller, my lord,’”’ re-

plied Sam, ‘I never had occasion to spell it more than once or twice in

my life, but I spells it with a V.”

Here a voice in the gallery exclaimed aloud, ‘‘ Quite right too, Samivel,

quite right. Put it down a we, my lord, put it down a we.”

So with Kolenati’s Newe, “I spells it with a V.”

Acentropus. 141

more positive ones,” I confess I was not quite prepared

for the conclusion, that it is “ advisable provisionally to

separate the forms from different localities,” which sepa-

ration Nolcken proceeded to make, as follows :—

(1) A. niveus. Paris. Female unknown.

(2) A. Hansont. Female with ample wings.

(3) A. Garnonsiit. Female wingless (or with rudi-

ments ?).

(4) A. badensis? Lake of Constance. Female with

short rudiments of wings.

(5) A. germanicus. Stralsund. Female unknown.

(6) A. Neve. St. Petersburg, in the Neva. Female

unknown.

(7) A. latipennis. Both sexes with ample wings. From

its colour, shape of wings, &c., certainly a good species.

Of these seven, he says, at least three may be regarded

as certain and well-founded species.

In the same year (1869) Tengstrém indicated the

Finnish form as A. obscurus, var. of A. Neve.

In 1870, Milliégre figured A. niveus and latipennis

(Iconog. pl. exv. f. 21, 22); and Knaggs inserted A.

niveus and latipennis in his ‘ List of British Lepidoptera.’

Finally, Staudinger and Wocke, in 1871, split the differ-

ence between Nolcken’s three certain and seven possible

species, and enumerated the five as follows :—

(1) ? niveus, Oliy., Latr. : Paris.

(2) Hansoni, Ste., Noleck.=A. niveus, Ste. mu. England.

(3) Garnonsii, Curt., Nolek. . ° . England.

(4) Neve, Kol., Nolck. . 5 . . St. Petersburg.

a.? hadoneis, Nolck.=niveus, Hein. 3 . Lake of Constance.

b. ? germanicus, Nolck.=niveus, Mill. (sp.

diversa?) . : : : : - Pomerania.

c. var. obscurus, Teng. . : “ . Finland.

(5) latipennis, Mésch., Mill. . : : - Sarepta, on the Volga.

I will make a few remarks upon each of these. And

first I may say that the ? prefixed by Staudinger and

Wocke to A. niveus is not unwarranted ; for Stephens

recognized the insect, not from Olivier’s description,

which was meagre enough, but from Latreille’s abbrevia-

tion of that—‘ blanche, ailes ciliées; partie supérieure

de Vabdomen obscure”’—and to identify a species from

such a description must be the merest guess- work.

Westwood, however, tells us, that Haworth had a speci-

142 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

men which was ticketted “alba, Oliv. ;” * there is no

Phryganea alba of Olivier, but alba is the first word of

the diagnosis of Phryganea nivea ; and I presume, there-

fore, there must have been an oral tradition attached to

Haworth’s, and, perhaps, other specimens, that they were

the “ frygane blanche” of the French authors, and by

this means Stephens was satisfied that his Acentria was

identical with Olivier’s insect. Perhaps some of our

friends on the banks of the Seine will take the pains to

re-discover Olivier’s nivea; as Milliére says ‘‘ it is hardly

known in France.” And, at all events until such re-

discovery is made, it must remain a matter of consider-

able doubt what the Phryganea nivea really was. But if

it was not identical with the species (or one of the

species) of Acentropus which we have in this country, it

has dropped out of knowledge altogether ; it is a name,

and nothing more.

Brown’s view is, that Curtis’s Garnonsii is the niveus

of Olivier ; he attributes to this species the specimens

obtained by Dale and Curtis at Glanville’s Wootton, and

by himself at Burton-on-Trent; ‘‘ the female (he says) is

apterous.” And speaking of A. Hansoni, he says that

the female “‘so far from being apterous, 1s furnished with

wings of twice the area of those of the male.” Now

Brown admits that, as regards the males of Garnonsii and

Hansoni, ‘ the difference is so sight, that, if specimens

of the two species once become intermixed in the cabinet,

it is almost impossible to separate them ;” and I venture

to say that, but for his belief that the female of one is

always amply winged, and the female of the other always

without wings, Brown would not have dreamt of regard-

ing them as two species. The only ground alleged for

separating the two is, that the males being indistinguish-

able, one has a winged, and the other an apterous female ;

the argument is, that at Glanville’s Wootton and Burton

only the apterous female is found, and at London and

Reading only the winged female is found. And Speyer

says the female seems to occur of two forms, “which,

perhaps, belong to different species.”

But is this the case? Let us look into this a little more

closely. tis quite true that apterous females (or rather

* The identical specimen was exhibited by Westwood when this paper

was read; it is unquestionably a male Acentropus Garnonsit.

Acentropus. 143

females with rudiments of wings, which, for brevity, we

will call apterous *) were found at Glanville’s Wootton ;

but it is equally true that winged females were found at

Glanville’s Wootton. Curtis and Dale took the two

forms of female together ; and though the London col-

lections do not contain a single apterous specimen, there

is no lack of amply winged females from Glanville’s

Wootton. Then, what is the state of affairs at Burton-

on-Trent? Brown bred the apterous female, but never

*‘had an opportunity of studying its habits in a state of

nature;” in a recent letter, he writes, ‘‘ I may further

add, that it is my firm conviction that winged females,

with wings so ample as those found in London, cannot

exist amongst our examples without their having been

seen.” But to this I reply, that M’Lachlan has a female

with wings as ample as any of those found near London,

and this female, he assures me, was captured by himself,

not in the Trent, it is true, but in the Canal, at Burton.

So that in both the localities in England, in which the

apterous females have occurred, the winged form has

likewise occurred. It is true that (so far as I know)

near London the apterous form, and on the Lake of

Constance the winged form, has not yet been found; but

negative evidence of this sort is of very shght value.

Finally, Ritsema found a number of pupe near Haarlem

in 1870; from these only two females emerged, and one

had rudimentary, the other well-developed wings. Was

one of these Garnonsii, and the other Hansoni? two

species out of the same batch of pupz, or two forms of

the female of one and the same species? There are

females without any trace of wings, females with rudi-

ments of wings, and females with ample wings ; and if

these forms occur together, and the males are all alike,

it seems to me that we require something more than the

difference in the alar development of the female sex, before

we can assert that there is more than one species. I sub-

mit that unless some other distinction can be pointed out,

beyond the greater or less growth of wing of the female

sex, the old view is the sound one, and Hagen was right

when he regarded the winged and the unwinged females

only as two forms of the same species.

* «A semi-apterous form of the female,” is M’Lachlan’s expression

(Intell. ix. 132).

144 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

But it will be said there are other differences; and

Brown describes the apterous female as being furnished

‘with long silky white fringes to its hinder tibie,” from

which he presumes it “‘ to be endowed with active swim-

ming and diving powers.” But a reference to Brown’s

figures shows that the winged female has the tibial fringes

as strongly developed as the wingless female, and that,

so far, she is equally well endowed with swimming and

diving powers, unless her wings act as impediment. As

to this, I may recall Lubbock’s exhibition of Polynema

fuscipes, swimming by means of its wings (Proc. Ent.

Soc. 1862, p. 93), a Hymenopterous insect with large

fore-wings profusely fringed all round, whose motion

through the water is due entirely to a sharp jerking

action of the wings: and, to return to Acentropus, I have

already suggested that the female which Kolenati saw

descend into the water in 1846 must have been a winged

female ; but, however this may have been, it is abundantly

clear, that the winged male can exist under water; and

if the winged male, why not the winged female ? if the

winged male deliberately descends into the water in pur-

suit of the apterous female, why not also in pursuit of the

winged female? With reference to these tibial fringes,

I may mention, that not a trace of them was to be seen

on the (winged) specimens which first came under my

examination; I thought, therefore, that they might be

confined to the apterous female, and that there might

have been an error in Brown’s figure of the winged female

(figs. 7, 9). But in reply to enquiries, Brown informs

me that a winged female from London, now in his collec-

tion, ‘‘ has the brushes at the present moment of full size

as depicted.” And I have since had the pleasure of

seeing winged females from Cheshunt, which exhibit

traces of the fringe, and a continental female of A. lati-

pennis which shows it quite prominently.* It seems clear,

then, that like the leg spurs of the male, these fringes

are easily deciduous: but if so, how about their use in

swimming ?

I pass on now to A. Neve, of which I have seen speci-

mens given by Nolcken to Stainton. Judging from

* Nolcken thought he saw a trace of the fringes on a male from Stral-

sund; but he could not feel certain about this.

Acentropus. 145

Kolenati’s figure, which he reproduced, Brown thought

this a distinct species. He says “the upper and under

wings have different relative proportions, and the body

is shorter and more hairy, whilst a very definite difference

exists in the two blunt teeth on the hinder tibie, of

which I cannot detect any trace in A. niveus’”’ To which

I may add that in Kolenati’s figure the cell of the hind-

wings is represented as open; and Kolenati, as a Tri-

chopterist, would naturally be supposed to pay particular

attention to neuration. Now Curtis’s figure of Garnonsii

distinctly represents the hind-wings, as well as the fore-

wings, with a long closed cell; Westwood’s wood-cut,

and Brown’s two figures, all agree in showing a closed

cellin both pairs of wings. Heinemann places Acentropus

in the Botide, and gives “ hind-wing-cell closed,” as one

of the characters of the family. Nolcken finds numerous

errors in Kolenati’s description and figure, though I

cannot find that he specifically mentions the open cell.

Speyer (whose specimens were from the Neva) says, that

the wing-veins are very inaccurately figured by Kolenati;

but expressly adds “‘ the central cell of the hind-wings is

open:” yet he says, that Heimemann’s description is

accurate, and that Westwood’s figure agrees with his

specimens! ‘The difference between a closed cell and an

open cell, if constant, would be a generic, if not a familiar

distinction: but in truth, it is not constant, but merely

accidental: the closed cell is the normal form of the

hind-wing, and just as Kolenati and Speyer happen to

have alighted on a specimen in which the hind-wing-cell

was open, I have found one, and one only, which seems

to present the same aberration. With regard to the

different proportions of the wings, not one of Nolcken’s

one hundred and fifty specimens from the Neva agreed

with Kolenati’s figure; they had the same shape and

relative size as the specimens from the Bodensee and

other localities. Again, Nolcken was unable to discover

the two blunt teeth depicted by Kolenati on the hinder

tibize of A. Neve, and nobody else has had any better

success, so that I think this must be taken to be one of

the numerous inaccuracies of Kolenati’s figures, unless,

indeed, Kolenati detected the spurs on the hind-tibie,

and these teeth are a rough and inaccurate representation

of the spurs. But to pass from Kolenati’s figures to his

own words: he says that ‘in Westwood’s wood-cut,

everything agrees well with our examples ” except the

146 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

form of the wing-scales; and Nolcken says that the shape

of the scales, as figured by Kolenati, is not true to nature.

Speyer points out that Westwood (Introd. 11.324) ex-

pressly denies the existence of the inner spine or appen-

dage to the fore-tibize which he observed in A. Neve, and

adds, ‘‘ Since all my specimens show it, this circumstance

is only explicable to me by the supposition, that the

English species is not identical with that of the Neva.

Westwood’s other characters, as well as Stainton’s short

description, certainly as to the rest agree very well

with Russian examples.” But surely where the spurs

on the mid- and hind-tibie have been looked for

in vain by so many observers (including Speyer him-

self, at the time he penned the sentence I have

quoted), it is too much to, say that, because West-

wood’s specimen did not exhibit this minute appen-

dage to the fore-tibize, therefore A. Neve must be a

different species from his. Be it remembered, too, that

out of all the specimens from the Neva, nobody but

Speyer has ever been able to detect this object; though

told what to look for, I cannot find if on any English

specimen; but it seems far more likely that this appen-

dage, like the other leg-appendages, is deciduous and

easily lost, than that there should be two species, alike in

everything else, down to the minutest particular, but

distinguished, one by the possession, and the other by

the absence, of this spine. In truth, this difference, if

it really existed, would be something more than a specific

difference, it would be a generic distinction. And the

same remark applies to the ocelli; Nolcken mentions

the ocelli of Neve as if their presence would serve to

distinguish it from the English species, apparently for-

getting that both Curtis and Stephens say ‘‘ ocelli two,”

so that there is, at least, as much evidence in favour of

their existence in Garnonsii and Hansoni as in Neve ; at

the same time, Nolcken doubts the existence of any

ocelli in Neve, and considers that Kolenati was in error.

But again I say, this difference, if it really existed, would

be a generic, not a specific distinction; and, for myself,

I cannot doubt, that if one Acentropus has ocelli, they all

have. In 1864, after an abstract from the Natural His-

tory of Tutbury, Newman (Zool. 8920) said, ‘ the species

A, Neve, distinguished by the broad velvet-umber belt

round the abdomen, is the one most commonly seen in

cabinets ; the beautiful belt has been mistaken for grease

Acentropus. 147

by some of our entomologists ;”* I presume this refers

to English cabinets, at all events it is true that most of

the English specimens haye the middle segments of the

abdomen darker than the rest, but I feel confident that no

one who examines a series of Acentropus would think of

resting a new species upon that alone. The value, how-

ever, of Newman’s note is, that he recognizes the Neva

insect as an English species, and the one most commonly

seen in our Cabinets. Hagen had previously told us

(Stett. Zeit. 1859, p. 203) that specimens from England

were identical with one of Kolenati’s specimens from St.

Petersburg which was sent to him, and that Kolenati’s

doubt on the subject was unfounded. Lastly, Heinemann

cites Stainton’s insect and Kolenati’s insect as identical

with what he calls A. niveus; and Snellen (Tid. voor

Ent. 1871, p. 170) considers that the Dutch specimens

agree perfectly with English examples, and with those

collected by Nolcken in the Neva, and that the whole

are referable to one and the same species.

Of A. Neve Nolcken says “female unknown,” and

this is true. But Kolenati says, “I saw one female dive

and crawl down the stem of the Potamogeton.” Now this

was in 1846, ten years after Stephens in his ‘ Illustra-

tions’ had given the winged Hansoni as the female of

niveus, and eight years before the existence of an apterous

female was dreamt of. Under these circumstances, I

think we may fairly infer that the female which Kolenati

saw wasa winged female: had it been apterous, so startling

a novelty would scarcely have been unnoticed. Hven

when writing his account of the insect (which was not

published till 1858), Kolenati would seem to have been

unaware of Curtis and Dale’s discovery of the apterous

female in 1854, and the record thereof in our ‘ Proceed-

ings’ may well have escaped his notice ; whilst Brown’s

history of the genus was not given to the public until

1863, and then in the form of an Appendix to a local

Natural History, so that it was scarcely likely to attain

that extended circulation on the Continent which the

interest attaching to its contents rendered so desirable.

* For instance, by Newman himself: ‘it is curious that the basal seg-

ments of Acentria nivea become greasy very shortly after the insect has

been shut up in a camphored drawer” (Zool. 5629). I apprehend that

the beautiful belt is Olivier’s ‘‘ partie supérieure de l’abdomen un peu

obseure.’’

148 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

The A. badensis of Noleken, of which I have seen a

male sent by Reutti to Stainton, is the insect given as

niveus by Heinemann, who treats Neve as identical

therewith; and as the only locality mentioned by Mil-

litre for his A. niveus is the Lake of Constance, I should

have thought that his fig. 20 represented badensis, but

according to Staudinger and Wocke it represents A.

germanicus, if not a “ species diversa,” distinct (I sup-

pose) not only from germanicus and badensis, but from

Neve also. As to badensis, Nolcken says, “‘ the female

has short rudiments of wings, so that this species cannot

be identical with the English species, which has a wing-

less female ;”” we have seen that many of the English

females have short rudiments of wings, but on this point

I refer back to what I have said under the head of Gar-

nonsii and Hansonit. He also remarks that the absence

of the long hairy fringes of the hind tibize (for he cannot

believe that Heinemann would have overlooked them)

distinguishes it from the English species; but the cadu-

city of these fringes has already been referred to, and

doubtless Heinemann does not mention them for the

same reason that every author except Brown has omitted

to mention them. Lastly, Nolcken says that the absence

of the two teeth on the hind-tibiz of the male distinguish

it from A. Neve, but as he himself, like everybody else,

has been unable to discover these teeth anywhere but in

Kolenati’s figure, it is rather too much to adduce their

absence as a proof of the distinctness of badensis. And

as Staudinger and Wocke do not consider badensis

entitled to specific rank, I think we shall not go far

wrong in agreeing with them on this point.

The A. germanicus of Nolcken, from Pomerania, must

be the insect which Zeller had in numbers (Stett. Zeit.

1867, p. 192) without its occurring to him that it was

specifically distinct, and as Nolcken gives no reason for

regarding it as distinct, | again agree with Staudinger

and Wocke in refusing it specific rank. I am unable to

make out why Staudinger and Wocke consider Milliére’s

niveus to be Nolcken’s germanicus, and not badensis.

There remains only A. latipennis, of which Knaggs

has lent me a continental pair (¢ and ?) sent to him

by Staudinger. Moéschler himself says, that A. latipennis

“cannot easily be distinguished from A. niveus:” the

only distinctions which I can gather from his description

Acentropus. 149

are a slight difference in the length of the antenne,

some difference in colour and size, and the broader,

rounder wings. ‘‘ Both sexes with ample wings ; by its

colour, shape of wing, &c., a good species,” says Nolcken.

Herrich-Schiffer figured the original specimen, but his

figure does not throw much light upon the subject: he

mentions, however, that the palpi [of the ? ] are much

shorter than in niveus [ 5], the legs so far anomalous

that the tibize of the four hindmost and the tarsi of the

middle ones have long hairs [this is not peculiar to Jati-

pennis|, and the thighs of the hindmost pair are only a

little shorter than their tibie; also the antenne are

shorter, thinner, and scarcely perceptibly ciliate. 1 can-

not find any published description of the male of A. lati-

pennis. Mulhére’s figures are too small to be of much use,

and they are erroneous in the neuration of the hind-wings ;

but they are characteristic, and show the difference

in the shape and outline of the wings very well; I

imagine, however, that his fig. 21 represents a ? lati-

pennis. The only recorded locality on the Continent for

A. latipennis is Sarepta, on the Volga; but Knaggs has

introduced the name into his ‘British List,’ manifestly

considering it to be identical with the Hampstead form

with the winged female. And of this, I think there is

no doubt. An examination of the specimens sent by

Staudinger shows that the female Jatipennis is only our

old friend, the Zancle Hansoni of Stephens; in other

words, Méschler’s insect is identical with our London in-

sect with the amply-winged female.

To slight differences in colour and size, I attach no

importance. Hagen mentions that the colouring of the

male Acentropus is variable in Prussia, the fore-wings

being sometimes more and sometimes less flushed with

brown (Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1859, p. 203), and he refers (7b.

1870, p. 316, n.) to specimens from Russia and Kast

Prussia which had the wings marked with brown. Teng-

strém (Not. Faun. Fenn. Forh. 1869, p. 324) says that

Reuter captured specimens of A. Neve which in colour-

ing resembled latipennis. And Ritsema (Tijd. voor Ent.

1871, p. 34, n.) reports that ‘ the colour varies between

snow-white and gray.” I have not seen any specimen

which could be appropriately described as snow-white ;

but I do observe differences both in colour and size in

our English insects. These differences, however, do not

TRANS, ENT. Soc. 1872.—PaRT 1. (MAY.) M

150 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

serve to distinguish latipennis (Hansoni) from niveus

(Garnonsii), but are common to both forms; the English

latipennis exhibits as great a range of variation, both in

size and colour, as the English niveus ; specimens from

Cheshunt are precisely like those sent by Staudinger,

and of the uniform dull tint depicted by Herrich-Schiffer,

whilst others from Hampstead are of lighter hue, and

prettily mottled, or flushed with deeper brown. The

important point is, undoubtedly, the broader rounder

wing of A. latipennis, and though the winged females

agree well with one another, from whatever locality they

come, there certainly is a difference in the shape of the

wings of the male, which is very perceptible when the

narrowest and the broadest winged specimens are con-

trasted ; and some of the Hampstead examples are larger

insects, and have even broader wings than the Conti-

nental latipennis, differmg in this respect as much from

latipennis as the latter does from niveus. But other males

captured at the same time and place, and specimens

taken elsewhere consorting with amply-winged females,

exhibit the narrower wing which is supposed to distin-

guish niveus ; and, in fact, there is every gradation, the

extremes may be connected by intermediate forms, and

I do not think the breadth of wing can be depended upon

as a test of their specific distinctness.

If this be so, I submit that there is, after all, but one

species of Acentropus ; with a wide Huropean range, and

exhibiting perhaps slight modifications in different loca-

lities, but gradual modifications, the extreme forms being

connected by intermediate links. Its geographical range

extends from about 4° W. to 45° EH. longitude, and from

48° to 61° N. latitude; even those who advocate the

separation into several species admit that A. Neve ranges

from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Bodensee, whilst A. lati-

pennis occurs alike in Kngland and South-Hastern Russia.

And indeed, with the exception of the isolated Sarepta,

on the Volga, there is a continuity about the localities

which favours the idea of the unity of the species ; thus

starting from St. Petersburg, we pass along the North

coast of the Gulf of Finland, then along the Prussian

shore of the Baltic, and inland to Frankfort-on-the-Oder,

then to Holland, England, France, and the southermost

part of Baden or the northern confines of Switzerland.

The insect is so insignificant in appearance that it may

well be overlooked ; if searched for, I have no doubt it

would be found wherever a pond-weed grows.

K

Acentropus. 151

There is one point to which I have not referred,

because no use has hitherto been made of it, for the dis-

crimination of the supposed species of Acentropus. I

mean the shape of the genital organs and anal appendages,

in which Trichopterists so much delight. Nolcken finds

fault with the figures given both by Kolenati and Brown ;

and they are certainly wanting in detail. Hagen and

Douglas have remarked upon the certainty which an

examination of these organs would give, but to arrive at

this certainty it is desirable that fresh specimens should

be examined. From such examination of a few dried-up

examples as I have been able to make, I find nothing

which, in my view, warrants any separation into different

species; but with newly captured insects, the result

might be different. *

Nolcken himself, to whom we are indebted for the

greatest amount of subdivision, admits that amongst the

males of all the forms reported to be A. niveus, he could

not find any trustworthy differences. In the case of

forms so nearly allied, I think the onus probandi ought

to lie upon those who assert their specific distinctness.

And believing that, by simply asking an abstract ques-

tion, I am less likely to provoke investigation and

discussion, than by expressing an opinion which can be

contradicted and disproved, I will conclude by expressing

an opinion—to which I am not wedded, and from which

T shall be glad to be converted—but still an opinion

founded on such evidence as | have been able to obtain,

namely, that all the forms of Acentropus heretofore

attempted to be distinguished are, in fact, referable to

one and the same species, for which, in the present state

of our knowledge, I shall retain the name that is in

_ vogue, Acentropus iiveus.

* Since this paper was read, M’Lachlan has examined the anal appen-

dages of specimens from various localities. See the result stated in the

next following paper.

152 Mr. J. W. Dunning on

The synonymy will stand as follows :—

LEPIDOPTERA PYRALIDINA.

Fam. ACENTROPODIDA.

Acentropide, Stephens, Ill. Mand. vi. 150; Acentride,

Speyer, Stett. Zeit. 1869, p. 405.

The name Acentropide, which Stephens first applied to

the family, (though formed on the analogy of Megalopide

from Megalopus, which had the sanction of no less an

authority than Lacordaire) , has been amended into Acen-

tropodide ; for this sesquipedalian word Speyer proposes

the shorter Acentride. For myself, I prefer to take the

name of the family from that of the typical genus.

Moreover, the inappropriateness which modern discovery

has shown to exist in the word Acentropus, though an

insufficient ground for displacing a name that has obtained

currency for forty years, is a sufficient ground for declin-

ing to admit the new name Acentride, which is just as

inappropriate as Acentropus.

Gen. ACENTROPUS.

Acentropus, Curt. Brit. Ent. xi. 497. (Acentria, Ste.

Cat. 316; Zanele, Ste. Nomencl. 118).

Sp. 1. AcENTROPUS NIVEUS.

Phryganea nivea, Oliv. Enc. Méth. vi. 536, 549

(LSI) hes

Acentria nivosa, Ste. Cat. 316 (1829). ¢,sine descrip.

Zancle Hansoni, Ste. Nomencl. 118 (1833). @ alis

amplis, sine descrip.

Acentropus Garnonsii, Curt. Brit. Ent. xi. 497 (1834).

3; Proc. Ent. Soc. 1854, p. 24, ¢ alis abortivis.

A. niveus, Ste. Ill. Mand. vi. 150 (1836). ¢, ? alis

amplis. .

A, Neve, Kol. Wien. Ent. Monats. ii. 381 (1858). ¢.

A. latipennis, Mosch. Wien. Ent. Monats. iv. 55

(1860). 9? alis amplis.

A. badensis, Nolck. Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxx. 283 (1869).

3, 3 alis abortivis.

Acentropus. 153

A. germanicus, Nolck. Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxx. 288

(T869). @.

A. obscurus (var.), Teng. Not. Faun. Fenn. x. 324

(1869). 2.

Hab.—France (Paris, Olivier).

England (Greenwich, Stephens ; Reading, Hanson ; Col-

chester, Garnons ; Glanville’s Wootton, Ourtis, Dale ; Bur-

ton-on-Trent, Brown, M’Lachlan ; Hampstead, Knaggs,

MLachlan, Wormald, Piffard; Lewisham, Stainton ;

Horning Fen, King; Wicken Fen, Bond; Haslemere,

Barrett; Ringwood, Corbin ; Oatlands, Stevens ; Ches-

hunt, Boyd ; Regent’s Park, London, Dunning).

Scotland (Leach, according to Curtis and Stephens).

Russia (St. Petersburg, Kolenati, Nolcken ; Helsingfors,

Palmen ; Pargas, Reuter; Abo and Nyland, Tengstrom ;

Sarepta, on the Volga, Méschler).

Germany (Greifswald, Zeller ; Stralsund, Hering ; Lenz,

Hagen ; Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Zeller ; Bodensee, Reutti,

Heinemann, Miilicre) .

Holland (Leyden, de Graaf; Haarlem, Weyenbergh,

Ritsema) .

The following is a chronological list of the authors to

whom I have referred :—

1791. Olivier, Enc. Méth. vi. 536, 549. Phryganea nivea.

1805. Latreille, Hist. Nat. Ins. xii.95. Phryganea nivea.

1829. Stephens, Syst. Cat. 316. <Acentria nivosa (sine

descrip.).

ip Curtis, Guide, 137. Acentropus Garnonsit (sine

descrip.).

1833. Stephens, Nomencl. 118, ed. 2. Zancle Hansoni

(sine descrip.).

1834. Curtis, Brit. Ent. xi. pl. 497. Acentropus Gar-

nonstt.

1835. Westwood, Tr. Ent. Soc. i. 117.

1836. Dale, Naturalist, i. 14.

a Stephens, Ill. Mand. vi. 150. <Acentropus niveus.

1837. Curtis, Guide, 172, ed. 2.

Mr. J. W. Dunning on

Westwood, Introd. Mod. Classif. Ins. ii. 324, 412 ;

and fig. 113, 11-17.

Boitard, Nouv. Man. d’Ent. ii. 180. Phryganea

niven.

Westwood, Brit. Moths,i1. 257. Acentropus niveus.

Kolenati, Gen. et Sp. Trichop. i. 6.

Walker, Cat. Neurop. Brit. Mus. i. 136.

Curtis, Proc. Ent. Soc. p. 24.

Brown, Intell. i. 171.

Douglas, Intell. 11. 59.

Newman, Zool. p. 5629.

Westwood, Proc. Ent. Soc. p. 76.

Stainton, Ent. Ann. p. 102, f.6. Acentropus niveus.

Brown, Zool. p. 5919.

Kolenati, Wien. Ent. Monats. 1. 381, pl. vi.

Acentropus Neve.

Hagen, Stett. Ent. Zeit. xx. 203.

Stainton, Manual, 11. 145. Acentropus niveus.

Méschler, Wien. Ent. Monats. iv. 55. <Acentropus

latipennis.

Herrich-Schiffer, Neue Schmett. Eur. in. 123,

fig. 155. <A. latipennis.

Scott, Intell. ix. 125.

M’ Lachlan, Intell. ix. 132.

Westwood, Intell. ix. 148.

M?’ Lachlan, Intell. ix. 156.

Newman, Zool. vol. xix. preface.

M’Lachlan, Zool. p. 7614.

Knagys, Proc. Ent. Soc. p. 19.

Westwood, Report of Thirtieth Meeting of British

Association, Transactions of the Sections, p. 123.

Wocke, Cat. Lep. d’Hur. p. 85. A. niveus and

A. latipennis.

Cooke, Zool. p. 8085.

Newman, Zool. p. 8216.

Westwood, Proc. Ent. Soc. p. 101.

, Acentropus. 155

1863. Brown, Nat. Hist. Tutbury, 393. A. niveus,

Hansoni, and Neve.

1864. Newman, Zool. p. 8917.

Hagen, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien. xiv. 800, 865.

1865. Heinemann, Schmett. Deutschl. II. i. 2, p. 107.

A. niveus.

AS M’Lachlan, Tr. Ent. Soc. III. v. 169.

1867. Zeller, Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxviii. 192.

S35 Barrett, Ent. Mo. Mag. iv. 182. m

1869. Nolcken, Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxx. 275. A. niveus,

Hansoni, Garnonsii, badensis, germanicus, Neve,

and latipennis.

Speyer, Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxx. 400.

De Graaf, Tijd. v. Ent. IT. iv. 203.

Tengstrém, Notis. Faun. Fenn. Forh. x. 324, 558.

A. Neve, var. obscurus.

1870. Speyer, Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxxi. 202.

Hagen, Stett. Ent. Zeit. xxxi. 316, n.

Douglas, Ent. Mo. Mag. vu. 43.

Milhiére, Iconog. de Chenilles et Lep. in. 169, pl.

115, f. 20, A. niveus, f. 21, A. latipennis.

Knages, Cab. List of Lepid. of Gt. Britain and

Ireland. A. niveus and A. latipennis.

1871. Wocke, Cat. Lep. d’Hur. p. 216. A. niveus, Han-

sont, Garnonsit, Neve, latipennis.

Ritsema, Tid. v. Ent. II. vi. 34, 157.*

Corbin, Entom. v. 421.

Knaggs, Lepidopterist’s Guide, 68, 82, 86.

1872. Newman, Entom. vi. 10.

33

* T am informed, April 10th, 1872, by the author of the ‘“ Geschied-

kundig Overzigt van het Geslacht Acentropus,”’ that a continuation thereof

is in the hands of the editors of the ‘‘ Tijdschrift voor Entomologie.”

And in the “ Petites Nouvelles Entomologiques”’ for April 15th, is a

note by Ritsema, in which the author reiterates the opinion that there

are but two known species of Acentropus, A. niveus and A. latipennis,

‘‘the latter having been met with only in Southern Russia.”’ From what

has been said above, it will be seen that this is not correct ; A. latipennis

156 Mr. J. W. Dunning on Acentropus.

having been captured in England, quite as frequently as A. niveus. I am

quite in accord with Ritsema when he says that A. Hansoni, Garnonsii,

Neve, badensis, and germanicus are not specifically distinct from A. niveus ;

but I go a step further, and say that A. latipennis is identical with A.

Hansoni.

With reference to A. obscwrus, Ritsema appears to think that Tengstrém

described it as a new species, and that Wocke has reduced it to the rank

of a variety of A. Neve; the fact is, however, that Tengstrém never

regarded A. obscurus as anything more than a variety of A. Neve, and he

expressly described it as such.

Ritsema expresses surprise that Staudinger and Wocke have not adopted

the name Acentropide for the family; but when the derivation of the

word Acentropus is remembered, it is at once seen that there is no ground

for surprise, and that the change of Acentropide into Acentropodide is

only in accordance with the orthographic system which Wocke has fol-

lowed throughout his part of the Catalogue. For instance, the familiar

Pyralide have on the same principle been converted into the Pyralidide.

Staudinger on the other hand has retained the familiar Pieridew, which,

had it occurred among the Micro-Lepidoptera, would, I suppose, have

been written in its correct form of Pieridide.

(157 )

VIII. On the external sexual apparatus of the males of the

genus Acentropus. By Roserr M’Lacutay,

F.L.S., Sec. Ent. Soc.

[Read Ist April, 1872.]

At the Meeting of this Society held on the 4th ultimo,

my friend Mr. Dunning read a memoir (see preceding

paper) on the genus Acentropus, which I propose to sup-

plement by some remarks of my own, on points avowedly

not investigated by him. Of the ordinal position of the

genus I say nothing, except that I thoroughly agree with

those entomologists who place it in the Lepidoptera, feel-

ing sure that the few who appear to doubt the correctness

of this opinion, can never have studied the characters, or,

if they they have done so, maintain a factious opposition

from pure affectation. As a Trichopterist, I assert that the

attributes of the genus, its structure, larval characters,

and, in fact, everything excepting its aquatic habits, are

utterly opposed to its being Trichopterous, whereas there

is nothing whatever incompatible with its ordinal position

in the Lepidoptera.

Before proceeding to the subject of this paper, I will

remark, en passant, concerning Mr. Dunning’s observa-

tions regarding the existence or non-existence of ocelli.

Kolenati asserted the presence of two undoubted ocelli

in the ordinary position on the front portion of the vertex.

I have no hesitation in declaring these ocelli to be fic-

tious. At a séance alluded to by Mr. Dunning (see

p. 129) at which he, myself, and Mr. Douglas were

present, we subjected several examples to minute mi-

croscopic investigation, after having carefully denuded

the heads of every vestige of scaly clothing. The result

proved that in the position assigned by Kolenati, there

were no signs whatever of ocelli either developed or

abortive. But, in a slight depression on the outer side

(that next the eye) of the base of each basal joint of the

TRANS. ENT, Soc. 1872.—parT II. (MAY.)

158 Mr. Robert M’Lachlan on the

antenne, there was seen a small rounded raised object,

of polished texture, differmg from the ordinary integu-

ment. If this be an ocellus, and I am not prepared to

say itis not, then its position is at variance with anything

yet recorded for these organs.

My principal object here, is to explain the results of

an investigation of the structure of the external sexual

apparatus in the males, and its bearings on the question

of the supposed specific differences in the genus. -And

in making this investigation I entered a new field of

enquiry, for this was my first essay at an examination of

this apparatus in Lepidoptera. Many years occupied in

analogous observations in Y'richoptera and Neuroptera,

have rendered me tolerably conversant with the infinite

variety of forms to be found in the sexual parts of those

insects, and have, probably, enabled me to form a tolerably

correct idea of the amount of difference necessary to

establish specific separation ; but it is very possible that

the same differences are not always present in Lepidop-

tera, and I am aware that the few Lepidopterists who

have attended to this much neglected, though essential,

part of their studies, affirm that these characters are more

of generic than of specific value in that Order. On this

point I am not competent to form any opinion, but having

had the curiosity to carry my examination a little beyond

the genus more especially under consideration, I have

been amazed at the complex and beautiful structure

revealed by denuding the scales of the anal extremities

of various Lepidopterous insects.

In Acentropus I have endeavoured to make an exami-

nation of specimens from various localities. The only

places in which I have personally found the genus are

Hampstead near London, and on the Canal near Burton-

on-Trent. Besides those, I have seen specimens from

Ringwood in the New Forest, and from Cheshunt (taken

by Mr. W. C. Boyd). Also individuals from Continental

Europe sent by Dr. Staudinger to my friend Dr. Knages

(to whom I express my obligation for the permission to

make any use of the insects that I thought fit) , consisting

of two males (without female) sent as A. niveus, and a male

(with amply-winged female) sent as A. latipennis. Of

the English specimens all were accompanied by amply-

winged females, excepting those from Ringwood, of

which I have seen only males.

secual apparatus of Acentropus. 159

The general character of the anal appendages may be

described as follows :—

From the upper margin

of the last segment

proceeds a large boat-

shaped lobe, which, how-

ever, when viewed from

above, is longitudinally

canaliculate in the mid-

dle, instead of being

provided with a raised

keel, hence the term

‘boat-shaped’ is only

strictly applicable to its

lateral aspect: this lobe

is furnished with long

scales proceeding most-

ly from its base. To the

end of the lobe is at-

tached along, somewhat

lanceolate, process,

more or less pointed at

its extremity, which is

sometimes curved down-

ward, and beneath, be-

fore the extremity,

there is a tendency (not

always appreciable) to a

projection, in one speci-

men examined amount-

ing to an actual tooth:

on the-base of the pro-

cess there is possibly a

membranous tooth-like

structure, disappearing

ordinarily by desiccation. The intromittent organ is at-

tached to a membrane lying within, and connected with,

the above-mentioned boat-shaped lobe. Itis horny, and,

viewed laterally, long and acuminate, the apex being

acutely pointed and often mucronate. On the upper

side, about the middle, there is a projection, or dilatation,

furnished with more or less numerous, and more or less

minute, teeth or serrations. Viewed from beneath, the

apical portion of this organ expands, and is afterwards

contracted and produced into a slender point. From the

(Vide p. 162.)

160 Mr. Robert M’ Lachlan on the

lower part of each side of the last segment proceed the

enormous appendices inferiores, which are long and broad,

extending nearly to a level with the apex of the superior

process, spoon-shaped, concave within and convex with-

out, and ending more or less obtusely.

The above observations, and the accompanying figures,

have all been made by the aid of a 3-inch power, with the

compound microscope, and the camera lucida. The

various parts lying nearly on one plane, and simple in

structure, were the more easy to examine in this way;

but much allowance must even here be made for the fact,

that dry-insects only were examined, and for the difficulty

of obtaining precise similarity of position and focal equality

in microscopic manipulation as applied to these objects.

In some individuals the various parts are closed one

upon the other, rendering their discrimination impossible ;

in others, the intromittent organ is concealed under the

superior process.

So far as I am aware, the only published figures or de-

scriptions of this apparatus, are those by Hdwin Brown,

in Moseley’s ‘ Natural History of Tutbury,’ and by Kole-

nati (copied by Brown) in Wien. Ent. Monatsch. vol. i.

A comparison of their figures with those here given,

proves that they were drawn roughly without sufficient

magnifying power, the details of structure not being

represented.

I now proceed to apply the results obtained from my

investigations to the question of specific differences in

the genus. Taking the appendices inferiores first, 1 find

remarkable similarity in all the materials examined : but

in Staudinger’s g of A. latipennis, and in some indivi-

duals (of A. niveus) from Ringwood, these parts are

decidedly more acuminate, and more produced and acute

at the apex, and this is even not sufficiently indicated in

my figure, for, im consequence of the apex being some-

what incurved, it is much fore-shortened under a high

power. The boat-shaped lobe does not show any im-

portant variatign. The process extending from this lobe

differs to some extent in the contour of its lower edge,

viewed laterally; and in one example from Riggwood,

there was even an evident subapical tooth-like projection.

In Staudinger’s examples of A. niveus, and in my own

examples from near Burton-on-Trent, the extreme apex

is curved downwards, and more acute. The intromittent

sexual apparatus of Acentropus. 161

organ presents decided, though small, differences in cer-

tain individuals. In Staudinger’s examples of A. niveus,

in those from near Burton-on-Trent, and from Ringwood,

the apex is curved upwards into a small hook, and in

these there is also an appearance of a larger tooth within

the apex in front of the series of minute teeth on the

median dilatation. °

Mr. Dunning concluded his memoir by remarking, that

he was inclined to the opinion, that there were not facts

sufficient to justify us in considering that more than one

species of Acentropus has been satisfactorily proved to

exist, for which he retained the name ‘niveus.” The

results of my examination of the genital apparatus, do not

place me in a position to disagree with him. Certainly,

there is nothing to justify the wholesale multiplication of

species recently effected by Baron Von Nolcken. Yet I

feel inclined to reserve any opinion on the matter when

taken into consideration with the enormous discrepancy

in the alar development of the females, about which there

evidently exists some amount of mystery not yet un-

ravelled. In the males, also, there is a very considerable

difference in the form of the wings in individuals from

different localities, though it may be that this difference

may be better attributed to local than to specific infiu-

ences. And, furthermore, I do not consider that suffi-

cient attention has yet been paid to the characters

presented by the genital apparatus in Lepidoptera to

warrant us in assuming that in them, specific characters

may always be as marked as they are in T’richoptera, &c.

The students of Newroptera, using the term in its

broad sense, have sometimes been twitted with the remark

that they pay too much attention to these characters.

This has never been said-by a Neuropterist of a Neurop-

terist. In their Order each case is considered according

to its merits. Large groups of species, e. g. the restricted

family Libellulina, present scarcely any important differ-

ences in these characters in generic structure, and but

slight specific difference; others show a constant spe-

cific difference in some portion of the apparatus; and

there are, finally, many genera in which each species has

an arrangement of parts totally different from that of its

nearest allies. Thus wide specific difference may exist

in other characters, combined with an inappreciable

amount of it in these alone ; but I have never yet found

162 Mr. Robert M’Lachlan on Acentropus.

an instance of differences sufficient to be considered

specific in the anal apparatus, without corresponding

general discrepancies, though these latter are often diffi-

cult to explain in words. Local variation sometimes

exists in the same species, and so does individual varia-

tion, and occasionally to an extent, in large insects, that

would throw the small differences exhibited in the

appendages of the Acentropi into the shade; but, never-

theless, the fact remains unassailable, that the most

important organs, those upon which the perpetuation of

the species depends, are those in which, as a rule, the

best characters are found: and this latter remark obtains

equally with regard to sexual appendages not immedi-

ately connected with the genital apparatus, for, in insects,

domestication has not had an opportunity of forcing

these peculiarities into abnormal development, nor, by

altering the conditions of existence, of rendering them

useless, and consequently aborted. In almost all orders

of insects, sexual characters have been applied to specific

separation with the best and surest results. Lepidopterists

(with few exceptions) continue to allow the eye to be

attracted by beauty of colour, or variation in design of

markings, leaving more subtle characters neglected, either

designedly, or because their examination, by rendering

necessary the removal of the scales, makes the specimens

“imperfect” as they term it. I venture to predict that

the day is not far distant when coloured plates of butter-

flies, without details of structure, will be valued only

as pretty pictures, comparatively useless for scientific

purposes.

Explanation of the figures on p, 159.

Fig.1. Lateral view of appendages of a male from Hampstead; a, ap-

pendices inferiores ; 6, boat-shaped lobe ; c, superior process ;

d, penis ;* e, apex of penis from beneath, more enlarged.

2. Example from Burton-on-Trent.

5 3 A. niveus (Staudinger).

“ u A. latipennis (Staudinger).

* The teeth are somewhat exaggerated in all the figures.

( 163 )

YX. On the Longicorn Coleoptera of Chontales, Nicar-

agus. By H. W. Batss, F.L.S.

{Read 6th May, 1872.)

T'HE present paper is intended as an enumeration of the

Coleoptera Lengicornia of Chontales, in Nicaragua, with

descriptions of the new genera and species, and is founded

almost entirely on the collection made by Mr. Thomas

Belt, in the neighbourhood of Santo Domingo, in that

Province. In a letter describing the situation and phy-

sical geography of his collecting grounds, Mr. Belt writes

as follews :—

“Santo Domingo is a mining village, situated on the

head waters of one of the numerous streams that after-

wards jein and form the Blewfields river. It is nearly

midway between the Atlantic and the Pacific, in lat.

12° 16’ N. and long. 84° 59° W. The village hes just

within the western edge of the great forest, which covers

almost the whole of the Atlantic slope of Central America.

The height above the sea-level is about 2,000 feet; but

the ranges of hills around the village rise from 500 to

1,000 feet higher. To the eastward the forest continues

unbroken to the Atlantic; but to the westward, at a dis-

tance of about seven miles, the lightly-timbered plains

and savannahs commence, which stretch to the Lake of

Nicaragua.

“The climate is humid; for nine months of the year

rain falls nearly every day, and is often continuous for

many days together; and during the other three months

there are occasional showers, so that vegetation never

dries up, but is always green and luxuriant. The rocks

are ancient dolerites, much decomposed, and lying at

low angles.

“The surface of the land in the forest region forms a

succession of ranges and steep valleys, covered with

magnificent timber and much undergrowth. Near the

mines many clearings have been made, and the felled

trees form the great places of attraction for Longicorns

and other Coleoptera. Insects of all kinds abound, and

as might be expected, insectivorous birds are also very

numerous, both in species and individuals; so that I

have observed their twitterimgs and cries here to a far

TRANS. ENT. Soc. 1872.—PaRT Il. (AUGUST.) N

164 Mr. H. W. Bates on Longicorn

greater extent than in other tropical forests in which I

have wandered. ‘Twelve species of humming-birds feed

on the smaller insects; and trogons, motmots, with a

great variety of other birds prey on the larger species.

It is to this incessant persecution, I have no doubt, that

the insect world owes the special means of protection,

the mimicry and disguises, which are so extensively

assumed; some being provided with stings and offensive

flavours, and others mimicking these both in external,

appearance and movements.”

As Mr. Belt’s collections were thus made wholly in

the forest region of the lower levels, and contain no mix-

ture of the productions of the “ tierra templada,” or

temperate zone of elevation, which forms so uncertain an

element in collections from Mexico, and the Andean

regions of South America; they ought to furnish a satis-

factory means of comparing the insect fauna with that of

various distant portions of eastern tropical America,

such as the Amazons, South Brazil, &c. For, as

almost the whole Atlantic slope of the Continent, from

the southern to the northern tropic, is clothed with luxu-

riant forest, containmg the same types of vegetation,

and having a similar warm humid climate ; and as, more-

over, there exists no effective barrier to distribution, it

becomes an interesting question how far the productions

of the different portions resemble, or differ from each

other. Prima facie, it would appear that the fauna ought

to be almost the same throughout the whole area; and if

there is great diversity, the causes of it form a problem

of great importance. In such inquiries, however, we

are always met, as regards. Entomology, by obstacles

caused by the fragmentary state of our knowledge. Some

districts have been well, and others only superficially,

worked. As regards Longicorn Coleoptera of Tropical

America, we have a further difficulty, in the circumstance

that a large number of species have been suffered to

remain undescribed in collections, or, if described, are

referred to wrong genera. At present, therefore, there

is little to be done, except to describe new genera and

species, and note some of the most obvious facts in the

relations of the various faunas. Happily, the termina-

tion of Lacordaire’s great revision of the genera of

Longicornia enables us, at least, to refer the forms we

have to deal with, with much greater certainty than

before, to their natural place in the system.

Coleoptera from Chontales. 165

Mr. Belt has paid especial attention to the Longicorns,

and his collections sent home to the present time contain

about 250 species, of which 242 are enumerated in the

following pages; several obscure forms standing ovey

until the arrival of further material. An analysis of this

department of the Fauna of Chontales gives the folluw-

ing results :—

Peculiar to Chontales . ; ‘ : : : 133 species.

Common to Chontales and Nexto 4 : Sth Wale

» BA and the West India Islands Z Sin

* + and the United States ; ; oo ee

” 3 and New Grenada or Venezuela Dai

» Ac and the Amazon Region . : Dy as

” “5 and South Brazil : : 5 Oras:

Generally distributed in Tropical America . F Dia dias

No ia is common to Chontales and the Old World.

With regard to these numbers, it cannot be denied

that the proportion of species peculiar to Chontales (consi-

derably more than one-half) would be much diminished

if the productions Of regions adjoining Central America

were better known. On the other hand, many local and

rare species no doubt remain to be discovered ; ; so that

a large amount of speciality in the Longicorn Fauna may

be safely assumed.

_ With regard to the genera, a similar analysis brings

into prominence the essential community of type of the

Longicornia, throughout the Atlantic Slope of Tropical

America. Out of 129 genera found in Chontales, no

less than ninety-five are generally distributed over the

whole area in question; and nine only are peculiar to

the district. About ten, however, are distinguishable

as north Tropical forms ; 7. e., peculiar to Central Ame-

rica and adjoining region, inclusive of Mexico. These

are Braderochus, Strongylaspis, Callipogon, Mallodonop-

sis, Holonotus, Ornithia, Ceelarthron, Evander, Metaleptus,

and Cirrhicera. Several others might be added to this

list, as having only straggling representatives beyond

Central America and Mexico, where they exist in nu-

merous species; such as Stenosphenus, Ptychodes, Delia-

this, Hammoderus, and Carneades. Others extend further

to the southward (e. g., ten as far as Peru and the

Amazon Region). Although so generally distributed

within their area, scarcely any Tropical American genera

N 2

166 Mr. H. W. Bates on Longicorn

are found beyond it; and only seven, out of the 129

Chontales genera, are found in the Old World.

Thus, two general facts of much interest, I think, are

elicited by an analysis of Mr. Belt’s collection of Longi-

cornia, and there are abundant indications that other

tribes of Coleoptera will, on examination, confirm them ;

these are, (1), the homogeneity of type of the insect fauna

of the forest region of Tropical America, over probably

forty-five degrees of latitude, with great local speciality ;

and (2) , the existence of a distinct northern element whose

metropolis is Central America. These results, I am

strongly inclined to think, will not be invalidated by any

increase of knowledge respecting the Insect Faunas of

Tropical America.

Fam. PRIONIDA.

Parandra grandis, Thomson, Mus. Sciefftif. p. 790.

—Found also in New Granada.

Parandra punctata, White, Cat. Lopg. Brit. Mus. p. 2.

—Also in New Granada. ‘

Parandra searitoides, Thoms. Mus. Scientif. p. 82.—Also

im New Granada.

Braderochus -longicornis, n. sp.— 3 Hlongatus, angus-

tatus, parallelopipedus, castaneo-fuscus, antennis corpore

longioribus ; thorace valde transverso, brevissimo, utrin-

que spinis longis tribus subeequalibus, supra minus grosse

punctato-rugoso, fulvo-pubescenti; elytris medio vix

Jatioribus, apice late rotundato, angulo suturali oblique

spinoso, supra levibus sericeo-nitentibus, humeris sca-

brosis, disco leviter tricostato; subtus sternis omnibus

coxisque fulvo-pilosis.

Long. 1 unc. 11 lin. ; lat. elytr. medio 64 lin.

Distinguished from Br. sulcicornis (Lec.) and Agyleus

(Buq.) inter alia, by the length of the antennz which,

in the ¢, exceed by one sixth the length of the body.

As in both these species, the tibize are without spines,

the femora scabrous, and the third antennal joint sulcate.

One example in Mr. Belt’s collection. The Derobra-

chine are especially characteristic of the northern part of

Tropical America; all the species, eight in number,

inhabiting the region between New Granada and the

Coleoptera from Chontales. 167

southern part of the United States. None are yet re-

corded from Peru, Guiana, or Brazil.*

Callipogon barbatum, Fab. sp. Ins. I. 208.—This com-

mon Mexican insect occurs at Chontales as a local variety,

in which the largest male individuals have the short

thick mandibles of the medium developments of the

Mexican form. The antenne are also shorter. I am

inclined to think the original Fabrician description refers

to this form, obtained by Sir J. Banks from Honduras.

If so, the Mexican form should take the name of C. senea,

Dupont. Mag. Zool. 1832, pl. 33.

Strongylaspis scobinatus, Thomson, Classif. des Ceramb.

p. 313; Chevrolat, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1862, p. 272.—

Several examples. Found also in Mexico and Cuba. I

have compared Chontales specimens with both Thomson’s

and Chevrolat’s types now in the British Museum. The

following appears decidedly distinct.

Strongylaspis bullatus, n. sp.—Multo brevior, elytris

minus parallelus elongato subellipticus, fulvo-fuscus, pube

vel lanugine decuinbenti fulvo dense vestitus, thoracis

disco antico plagis duabus parvis, elevatis, nigro-castaneis

politissimis ; scutello gibboso asperrimo ; elytris, circa

scutellum solum, aspere granulatis; antennis et pedibus

nigro-piceis. Long. 12 hn. ¢.

One example in Mr. Belt’s collection.

* Six species are cited by Lacordaire (Genera, vol. viii. pp. 72-74); the

eighth is the following :—

Braderochus inequalis, n. sp.— ¢ Elongatus, castaneo-fuscus, antennis

corpore sexta parte brevioribus, thorace valde transverso, brevissimo,

utrinque trispinoso, spina mediana valde abbreviata, anteriori sub-bifida ;

elytris mox pone humeros explanato-dilatatis, apice late rotundatis utrin-

que bispinosis, supra coriaceis et punctulatis, humeris scabrosis, disco

leviter pluricostatis; subtus sternis coxisque fulvo-pilosis.

Long. 2 unce.; lat. elytr. 73 lin.

Hab.—Guatemala. Doct. Candéze amicissime dedit.

By the sub-bifid form of the anterior thoracic spine, this species belongs

to the same section as Br. geminatus (Leconte), but it differs widely in

other respects; the thorax is very much brcader and shorter, and the

anterior spine does not project obliquely forward, besides being only im-

perfectly bifid, and the middle spine is reduced to a short tooth; the

colour of the elytra is much darker, and they are less smooth and glossy ;

the two spines at the apex are nearer together. The antennz are of nearly

the same relative length. From Br. longicornis this species differs, besides

other characters, in the elytra being broadest a little behind the shoulders,

where the margins are dilated and flattened out. In Br. longicornis they