188 f January,' 



Ilerbst (Ratzeburg), who is prior to Marsham by a short period ; and I certainly 



think that Gyllenhal's description is appUcable to continental types of Tomicus 

 hicolor in the Brit. Mus., which as certainly do not agree with (though closely 

 allied to) Mr. Morley's insect. However, I think it not tinlikely that the latter 

 may really be Marsham's fuscus, and that Gyllenhal was in error in thinking it 

 identical with his species. Apart from the very concise Marshamian description, 

 there appear to be no means of identifying this species. Mr. Waterhonse, in hia 

 Catalogue, sinks it, with a query, as a synonym of Tonvicus hispin/us, Ratz. ; noting, 

 however, that the fuscus of Stephens' Illustr. cannot be referable to that species. 

 The description in the " Manual " agrees well enough with Gyllenhal (being probably 

 adapted from him), but the exponents of fuscus in the Stephensian cabinet, are, as 

 pointed out in the synonomy of Wat. Cat., one hispinus and one hidens. I find no 

 Marshamian type of fuscus in the Brit. Mus. ; though a part of Kirby's collection, 

 containing many Marshamian insects, passed to that Institution from the Entomo- 

 logical Society, when the latter body abandoned its museum. It has been considered 

 that Marsham's insect is villosus, — on what grounds I know not ; but, when we 

 consider that Marsham knew that species well, and points out characters for his 

 fuscus not reconcileable with it, and that Gyllenhal, who received an insect 

 purporting to be a type of Marsham's species, was also well acquainted with 

 villosus, that idea seems scarcely credible. It may be an argument (however 

 slight) in favour of the consideration that Marsham's insect is not identical with 

 Herbst's, that the former author, though quoting the latter in neighbouring species, 

 makes no reference to his hicolor, with which he fails to identify his own insect. On 

 the whole, the species being new to us, and, as far as I am aware, not described at 

 all (if it be distinct from Marsham's /uscms; and certainly not adequately described, 

 if it be that species) 1 think the better course would be to name it, provisionally, 

 Marshami. This course will, probably, ensure our being soon acquainted with its 

 correct speciiic appellation, if it be already described in any publication unknown 

 to me. 



Mr. Morley's insect, as far as I can judge from the examples that have come 

 under my notice, varies in size from rather less than I lin. to Ij lin., or rather 

 more, — equalling T. hidens in its average size. It is pitchy black in colour, with 

 the elytra pitchy-red, often much lighter than the thorax ; and is set with long, 

 scattered, thin, pale hairs (which are most evident behind), with a thicker tuft in 

 front of the head. The thorax is opaque, and transversely tuberculate-scabrous 

 in front, the scabrosity gradually diminishing behind and not running into 

 punctures ; the hinder part is, however, slightly shining, especially in the middle. 

 The elytra are much more shining and rather narrower than the thorax, cylindrical, 

 elongate, parallel, and laterally somewhat abruptly rounded at the apex, which is 

 unarmed in both sexes, and not perceptibly flattened, only rather abruptly rounded 

 off. They are rather strongly and closely punctate-striate, the interstices being 

 also evidently punctured, the punctures forming as it were rather irregular minor 

 supplemental striae. Compared with hicolor, it is less hairy, narrower, with the 

 thorax behind not so shining, and tuberculated instead of punctured, wanting also 

 the obsolete transverse depr ession behind the middle, and with the elytra not 

 nearly so evidently (if at all) flattened obliquely behind. 



