44 _ LONGICORNIA. 
attingentibus, articulo tertio modice elongato, 5°-10™ serratis; corpore subtus pedibusque pilosis, crebre 
punctulatis ; abdomine maxime petiolato ; -femoribus abrupte clavatis. 
Long. 8 lin. ¢. 
Hab. Guatemata, San Gerénimo (Champion). 
In many respects agreeing with the genus Sphecomorpha; but the femora, being 
abruptly instead of gradually clavate, point to a nearer relationship with Acyphoderes, 
from which it differs in the convex thorax. | 
PHESPIA. 
Phespia, Bates, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. x1. 1873, p. 127. 
Three species only are known of this curious mimetic genus of the Rhinotragina, 
Tropical-American like the rest of the group. 
1. Phespia corinna. 
Charis corinna, Pascoe, Trans. Ent. Soc. ser. 8, vol. v. p. 290°. 
Phespia corinna, Bates, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. xi. 1878, p. 128. 
Hab. Nicaracua, Chontales (Belt)—South America, CoLoMBIA}. 
TOMOPTERWUS. 
Tomopterus, Serville, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1833, p. 544. 
Seven species have been described, all Tropical-American. 
1. Tomopterus vespoides. 
Tomopterus vespoides, White, Cat. Long. Col. B. M. ii. p. 176, pl. v. f.8. 
Hab. Guatemata (Deby). 
STENOPSEUSTES. 
Stenopseustes, Bates, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. xi. 1878, p. 181. 
Only one species of this genus, from Parana in South Brazil, has previously been 
described. The following is perfectly congeneric with it :— 
1. Stenopseustes sericinus. 
Elongatus, omnino sericeo-pubescens, fulvus, thorace antennisque obscurioribus; capite opaco, occipite fusco, 
rostro melleo-flayo; thorace cylindrico, dorso longitudinater carinato, sericeo-opaco, limbo argenteo ; 
elytris brevibus, subvitreis, marginibus anguste punctulatis, basi seriteo-auratis. 
Long. 7 lin. @. 
Hab. Mexico (Hegewitsch). 
Rather larger and more robust than S. eger (the described example of which is a 
male), and differing from it by the smooth, glassy surface of the disks of the elytra, 
which are also relatively narrower and somewhat dehiscent after the middle. In these 
characters the species points to the relationship of the genus with Odontocera, which 
in S. wger was not indicated. The structure of the antenne and the atrophy of the 
prosternal process afford abundant characters for the distinction of the genus, which is, 
besides, totally different from Odontocera in facies. — 
