211 



Six examples of this iiiteresting novelty are before mo, 

 most of them froni Liangaü;as. 



Rodolia rubea MuIp., Spec. col. Trim. seciir. p. 903. 

 Crotch, Rev. Coccin. p. 280. 



Rodolia carneipellis MuIh., Opusc 111, p. 131. 



Hab. Soekavanda. 



Crotch has confused the species of liodolia uiul VcdaUce: 

 — The type of Bodolia is the .speeies I reoord here IL rubea. 

 a nearly hemispherical, entirely red iusect, Avith red hiiir. The 

 post-coxal fossettes (abdominal plates) only reach the middle of 

 the first abdominal segment. In Nocins Croteh states, they are 

 eomplete, i. e. reach the hind margin of that segment. That 

 genus therefore differs more. than as he states, onh' by the 

 8-Jointed antennae. 



Herr Weise has very completely elucidated these genera, 

 Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1895. p. 147, but I still think, the Japanese 

 species referred b}- him to Rodolia should be retained in a separate 

 genus, for which the name he proposed formerly, Macronovius, 

 can be nsed. 



Rodolia rufo-pilosa Muls., Spec. col. Trim. secur. p. 903; 

 Crotch, Rev. Coccin. p. 281; Weise, Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. 

 1895, p. 148. 



Hab. Soekaranda, Liangagas. 



Crotch referred a Rodolia from Penang to this species, 

 and ahhough Mulsant's species was from Hong-kong, there is 

 nothing in his too brief description, but what is ec|ually applicable 

 to the Sumatran insect, I can scarcely find any diß'erence on 

 comparison in the Sumatran species with others from China or 

 from India (Belgaum). The punctuation of the Sumatran insect 

 is scarcely visible, the base of the thorax is sinuate, so that the 

 ante-scutellar lobe is rather pronounced and is truncate, to tit 

 the base of- the scutellum; the whole insect is perhaps rather 

 more depressed, than Chinese R. rufo-pilosa and the colour is 

 not so bright. It seems to me to agree better with R. rufo-pilosa 



8tett. entomol. Zeit. 1901. 14' 



