320 Rev. H. Clark on Dejean's Genus Ccelomera. 



3. C. bajula, Oliv. Ent. vi. 618. 5, pi. 2. f. 17. 



This is a not uncommon Cayenne species ; it is subject to a 

 considerable variation in the form of the thorax, the sides of 

 which are sometimes rounded, sometimes rectangular, — and espe- 

 cially in the form of the elytra ; some examples in my cabinet 

 have the elytra much compressed. Length 6^ lines, breadth 

 4.\ lines. 



4. C. (Galleruca) lanio, Sahib., Dalm. 



C. derasa, Hoffmans. C. Braziliensis, Dej. Cat. C. lata, Baly, Trans. 

 Ent. Soc. (1865) 344. 



C. parallela, J elytris paulum post medium ampliatis, leviter rugosa, 

 elytris nigro-cyaneis ; caput leviter foveolatum, rufum ; thorax 

 sparsim punctatus, vel rufus vcl flavo-rufus; scutelhtmim\mnct&tum, 

 flavura ; elytra leviter rugosa, sparsim pubescentia, vel nigra vel 

 nigro-cyanea ; antennae nigrse ; pedes fusci, femoribus rufis ; 

 corpus subtus rufum. 



Long. corp. lin. 5^-6g ; lat. lin. 2g-3|. 



This species is nearly allied to C. Cayennensis, Fab., but is 

 readily separated from it by its larger size and by the black 

 basal joints of the antenna?. 



Brazil. A very common species. 



5. C. Cayennensis, Fab. Syst. El. i. 480. 11; Ent. Syst. ii. 14. 



Oliv. Ent. vi. 617. 

 C. Cajennensis, Fab. Mant. i. 74. 93, and in S. Nat. Gmel. i. 4. 1669. 85. 



Differs from C. lanio of this paper in its smaller size, in the 

 rugose, almost reticulated (not quite so much punctate) surface 

 of the elytra, and in the black coloration of the antennae and 

 underside. One or two examples have the antennae rufo- 

 flavous. 



The species has a very extended range : I have examples not 

 only from Cayenne, but from Peru, Columbia, and Brazil. It 

 is probably the C. Columbica of Schonh. C. Peruana, Erichs. 

 (Consp. Ins. Peruan. 165) must be referred to it. 



6. C. ruficollis, Oliv. Ent. 6. 616 ; Encycl. Ins. 6. 586 (1790). 

 C. riificornis, Baly, Trans. Ent. Soc. (1865), 343. 



Very nearly related to C. Cayennensis, Fab., of which indeed it 

 may be but a local variety. Both C. ruficollis, Oliv., and C. 

 Cayennensis, Fab., are subject to some variation, the species 

 before us being distinguished by its rufous antennas and some- 

 what more brightly rufous thorax. 



Brazil; Campos, Espiritu Santo. I have examples also from 

 Peru, which are identical, with the exception of the colour of 

 the scutellum. 



