— 102 — 
quam dimidio suo apicem capitis superante, secundo primo ?/s longiore, 
sublineari, apicem versus parum incrassato. Pronotum nonnihil trans- 
versum, capite circiter duplo latius, lobo antico postico paullo longiore, 
alutaceo, lobo postico distincte sat dense punctulato, margine basali 
late levissime sinuato. Scutellum modice dense sat profunde punc- 
tulatum, in dimidio basali area triangulari paullo elevata depressa 
subtilissime punctulata, in dimidio apicali carina angusta sed disfinc- 
tissima nitida instructum. Corium (cum clavo) fusco-punctulatum, 
limbo costali et macula oblonga prope angulum apicalem interiorem 
impunctatis, commissura clavi dimidio scutelli nonnihil longiore. Pleurae 
dense punctulatae. Long. circ. 4,5 mm. 
1866. Plociomerus rufipes Motsch. Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, XXXIX, 
I, 188. 
Allied to P. japonica Dist. but the upper side, antennae and 
legs are so differently coloured, that it cannot be the same species. 
The type is from Japan. It is in good condition, apart from the 
two last antennal joints, the apex of the abdomen and the membrane, 
which are mutilated. 
Note. — Some American authors call this genus Ptochiomera. 
I have seen Say's original pamphlet where this name is introduced; it 
is printed in very small type on coarse paper and it is difficult to 
decide whether the name is Pfochiomera or Plochiomera. At any rate 
these names are without a sense, and Plociomera is evidently what 
Say intended to write. 
Sinierus brevis Motsch. 
1863. Rhyparochromus brevis Motsch. Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 
‚ XXXVI, II, 78. 
1903. Sinierus cingalensis Dist. Rhynch. Brit. Ind., II, 65. 
The type (from Mt. Patannas, Ceylon) is in good condition and 
agrees perfectly with Distant's description and figure. 
Suffenus fusconervosus Motsch. 
1863. Rhyparochromus fusconervosus Motsch. Bull, Soc. Nat. 
Moscou, XXXVI, II, 79. 
1908. Suffenus fusconervosus Dist. Rhynch. Brit. Ind., Il, 75. 
Motschulsky does not describe the antennae and they are 
lacking in the two types from Colombo (both males). These are con- 
‚siderably smaller (1,2 — 2 mm.) than the specimen from Burma upon 
which Distant founded his description, but this specimen is probably 
a female and therefore larger (2,5 mm.) Distant’s figure is very 
good, but shows a punctulate impressed transverse line behind the 
Revue Russe d'Entom. .XVII. 1917. 
