146 Mr. P. Cameron on some 



type of a new genus. Both belong to King's section ii., 

 "vvhicli is distinguished by having four submarginal cellules, 

 the marginal having also an appendicular cellule. King 

 describes one species as having the antennaj forked in 

 the $ , and in another species he describes the antenna 

 as forrowed in the 1 ; but he makes no mention of the 

 structure of the tarsi, nor of the absence of calcaria. King 

 further says, that the species placed by him in this section 

 are not very naturally related beyond the similarity in the 

 alar neuration, and even with this the situation of the 

 reciuTcnt nervures does not agree in all the forms. 



Compared with sulcicornis, D. Ellisii has the antennas 

 longer and thinner, the clypeus has a much deeper in- 

 cision, and it is also emarginated at the sides, the 

 abdomen is longer and rounded at the apex ; the tibifB 

 have short, sharp spurs, the tarsi are of the normal 

 form, as are also the patella, while the claws are long, 

 sharp and bifid. The appendicular cellule is shorter and 

 narrower. 



Dielocera (?) crassicornis, sp. n. 



? . Black, smooth, shining, the mesonotum with the 

 scutellum red ; the anterior tibite piceous in fi:ont. 

 Wings infuscated, cleai-er at the apex. 



Length o\ lines ; alar exp. 6| lines. 



Similar to Hylotoma epldppiata, Kl., but larger; the 

 antennae not reddish at the base, the anterior legs with 

 only the tibiae pale in fi-ont, &c. The basal joint of the 

 tarsus is as long as all the others combined. 



Hab. — Amazons. 



This species apparently also belongs to King's second 

 section, but it differs from D. Ellisii and sulcicornis in 

 the first and second submarginal cellules receiving each a 

 recurrent nervure instead of the second receiving both ; 

 the antennre are thicker in proportion, thick, pilose, and 

 not grooved. The calcaria are moderately long. 



Obs. — It seems to me that the insect which Curtis 

 described (Trans. Linn. Soc. xix. 250) as the $ of D. 

 Ellisii has no relationship with that species. This con- 

 clusion I base on the great differences between the two, 

 and besides, the evidence which Curtis gives of their con- 

 nection is not very decisive. He says (p. 249), " On 

 looking over this collection I saw two insects which were 

 stated to be the two sexes, taken from a nest in an accom- 



