208 fFebniary, 



all. It was taken by Mr. Tliomaa King, in the dry district of Carrizal 

 Bajo, in the province of Atacama, on the r^outhern border of the 

 desert. 



- Gteiosomus affinis, sp. n. 



A prcecedente staturd my'ore, corpore ovato, convexo, pronoto antice 

 parum angustato, post ice Jatiore, angu'is o?nnibits productis, tantum 

 differt. 



Long. Corp. 20, lat. elytrorum ad hasim d, pone medimn 13 mill. 



Hab. : North Chile. 



One specimen, from the same locality as G. Kingi. • 



CAJfTHAEIS (?) PhILIPPII, Sp. U. 



Ulceus vel menmonms, cap)ite punctato, in medio macula ruhrd no- 



tato ; pronoto sparse punctata, rugoso, antice sulco trasverso sat profunde 



impresso ; elytris liiieis elevatis irregulariter reticulatis, areolas sat 



magnas includentihus, instructis ; ahdomine pedibusque nigris. 



Long. Corp. 18 — 28 mill. 

 Hab. : North Chile. • 



This fine insect was also taken by Mr. King in the above men- 

 tioned district. It doubtless may be placed in the genus Gantharis as 

 defined by Lacordaire (Gen. des Col. v, p. 676), although there are 

 sufficient differences to separate it generically from G. {Epicauta') 

 femoralis, Sol., the other known Chilian species. 



Nacebdes Saundeesi, sp. n. 



Nigra, coeruleo-micans,puiescens ; capite nigro, ore rufo ; pronoto 



rujb, maculis duahus nigris notato, postice attenuato ; elytris elongatis, 



sutwrd et utrinque vittd marginali luteis ; ventre nigro ; prosterno 



femoribusque rvfis ; geniculis, tibiis, tarsis antennisque fiiscis. 



Long. corp. 8 — 9 mill. 

 Hab. :* North Chile. 



This appears to be the same species as that described by Tair- 

 maire and Grermain (Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 1863, p. 268) as N. Ser- 

 villei, Sol. (in G-ay, Zool. v, p. 259), and, if so, it is an instance of 

 the numerous cases in which these authors have rendered " confusion 

 worse confounded " by trying to improve Gay's descriptions ; for here 

 they have taken an insect which cannot be of the same species as that 

 which Solier had in view when he wrote the description alluded to. 



The writings of these authors abound in errors of this description ; 

 one of the worst may be found I. c. 1858, p. 733, where an elaborate 

 description of a Stigmodera, supposed to be S. chilensis, Guer.,is given. 

 This description was, however, taken from a very dissimilar species. 



