al 
126 Dr. B. P. Uvarov’s Notes on the 
I think that this is very closely related to coerulescens 
Stil, and perhaps even identical with it. The difference 
between it and 7. nigrovittatus, described by Bolivar in 
the same paper (Lc. p. 25), is not clear to me. 
British Museum specimen: German HE. Africa, 1 3. 
4c. Thisoicetrus pulchripes guineensis (Krauss). 
1891. E[uprepocnemis] guineensis Krauss, Zool. Jahrb., 
Syst., v, p. 659, no. 14, pl. 45, fig. 5. 
1891. ELwprepocnemis| guineensis var. maculosa Krauss, 
l.c. p. 660, pl. 45, figs. 6, 6a. 
1907. Eluprepocnenis| guineensis Giglio-Tos, Bol. Mus. 
Tormo, xxii (554), p. 30. 
1910. Elwprepocnenis| guineensis Karby, Syn. Cat. Orth., 
iu, p. 560, no. 7. 
1914. [Thisoicetrus| guineensis I. Bolivar, Trab. Mus. 
Madrid, ser. Zool., N 20, p. 23. 
1914. Thisoicetrus guineensis Sjostedt, Ark. Zool., 12 (1), 
p. 14. 
British Museum specimens: Uganda: Entebbe, Bonda, 
Chagwe, Mityana, Kampala, Mabira Forest, 14 gg, 8 99° 
(C. C. Gowdey). 
I quite agree with Giglio-Tos that var. maculosa is only 
an individual aberration. All specimens examined by 
me have the wings of a very pale buff colour, not hyaline. 
4d. Thisoicetrus pulchripes aurantiaca subsp. nov. 
Two specimens (1 4, 1 9) from Sierra Leone, though quite 
like pulchripes in morphological characters, are distinct 
in coloration of hind tibiae; these are not sanguineous, but 
red, as in 7’. guineensis, while the wings are orange, as in 
typical pulchripes ; the elytra are marked with rather 
large black spots, forming transverse bands. 
British Museum specimens: Sierra Leone, Kavima, 
25 vi. 1912, 1 3 (type), Bendu, 14 viii. 1912, 1 9 (cotype) 
(J. J. Simpson). 
5. Thisoicetrus usambarieus [. Bol. 
1914. Thisoicetrus usambaricus 1. Bolivar, Trab. Mus. 
Madrid, ser. Zool. N 20, p. 27. 
I regard this species as being distinct from 7. pulchripes, 
though rather near to it. The chief difference is in the 
form of the wings, which are very wide, and, further, are 
a 
iii “y ioe BP ay 
