NEW HYMENOPTERA FROM OEYLON. 151 
Genus Promecilla, André. 
Promecilla cyanosoma, sp. nov. 
?. Ferruginea, abdomine cyaneo, segmentis 2-5 apice macula 
parva albopilosa, thorace elongato, postice contracto. 
Head and abdomen finely and closely punctured, thorax rather 
more coarsely punctured, the posterior slope reticulate, the pleure 
shining and sparsely punctured. Head scarcely broader than the 
thorax, narrowed behind the eyes and rounded posteriorly, the 
eyes nearer to the posterior margin of the head than to the base of 
the mandibles. Thorax more than twice as long as the head, 
rounded. anteriorly, arched to the middle and strongly sloped 
posteriorly, nearly three times as long as the greatest breadth, 
narrowed posteriorly. Second abdominal segment long, twice as 
long as broad, apical segment shining, without a pygidial area. 
Ferruginous, the abdomen dark shining blue. A small spot of 
white pubescence on the middle of the anterior margin of the thorax, 
and one in the middle of the apical margin of each dorsal abdominal 
segment from the second to the fifth inclusive ; the first ventral 
segment ferruginous. 
As in most other species of the genus the second joint of the 
flagellum is much longer than the third. There are only one or 
two spines on the posterior tibia near the apex. 
Length, 7 mm. 
Hab.—Hambantota, Ceylon (Fletcher) ; February. 
This species differs from ariel, Cam., in the colour of the legs 
and antennz and the smaller size and different distribution of the 
spots of white pubescence. In the latter point it also differs from 
regia, Sm., and metallica, Cam. P. hesitata, Cam., has the head 
much broader posteriorly, and P. prestabilis, André, has no spots of 
white pupescence on the abdomen. 
Genus Stenomutilla, André. 
Stenomutilla egregia (Sauss.). 
Mutilla egregia, Sauss. Ann. Soc. Ent. France (4), VIL, p. 351 ; 
1867. . (nec Klug.) 
Mutilla aureorubra, Sich. and Rad. Horae. Soc. Ent. Ross., VI., 
p. 304, 1869. 9°. 
Mutilla placida, Sm. Descr. n. spce. Hym.,. p. 198, 1879. &. 
Mutilla nobilis, Sm. (Cat. Hym. B. M., III., p. 33, 1855, 6), is 
almost certainly the male of this species, but it is better to keep 
them separate for the present. I have not seen Saussure’s type, 
but Smith’s species, the type of which is from Bombay, answers 
well to his description and figure. 
