150 



21. grouveXleana^ Reitt. I have a specimen of a MyrahoUa 

 given me by M. Grouvelle, ticketed with the name 

 "iLf. groiivelleana,^' and quite satisfactorily agreeing with Reitter's 

 generic characters — but if it is rightly named as a species 

 Reitter's description is a very poor one. The head and pronotum 

 of the specimen are decidedly strongly punctulate (the individual 

 punctures are hardly smaller than those on the pronotum of 

 Carpophilus hemipterus — though they are very much more closely 

 and rugulosely disposed than in that insect) — whereas Reitter 

 calls the head and pronotum " subtiliter punctata " The error is 

 I think more likely to be in Reitter's description than in Grou- 

 velle's determination, but on account of the doubt I have abstained 

 in describing the new species of this memoir from recording their 

 differences from grouvelleana. 



M. haroldiana, Reitt. Reitter calls the head and pronotum 

 of this species also " subtiliter punctata." In assigning the name 

 to one of the species before me (the only one of them having a 

 dorsal impression on the front part of the pronotum, which 

 Reitter gives as a distinctive character of haroldiana) I have 

 taken the term " subtiliter punctata " as implying puncturation 

 similar to that of the species sent by Grouvelle as grouvelleana, 

 and note that it is not much different from that which in my 

 descriptions I have called "sat fortis " or " subfortis," and I 

 may add that in my former paper on MyrahoUa (Tr. R.S , S.A., 

 1892), I applied the same qualification to Reitter's descriptions. 

 M. parva, Blackb. and lindensis, Blackb. have considerably finer 

 puncturation of their pronotum than in the specimen named by 

 M. Grouvelle but in other respects they do not at all agree as 

 species with Reitter's descriptions. 



CATHARTUS (?). 



The following species I refer to Cathartus on\y with hesitation^ 

 but I do not think there is any other described genus to which 

 it can be referred and it is certainly very near to that one. I 

 unfortunately cannot refer to the diagnosis of Cathartus and 

 have to fall back on a comparison with C. advena, Waltl. — which 

 I believe is the type — so that I should not be justified in forming 

 a new genus for the present insect, which does not seem to me to 

 differ from C. adtena by any characters likely to be generic unless 

 it be that the hind coxge are somewhat less widely separated — 

 making the \entral projection between them more triangular — 

 and that the tarsi differ somewhat, each of the basal three 

 joints being prolonged on the undersurface — the first feebly, the 

 second decidedly, the thiid strongly — while in C. adve72a the basal 

 joint does not appear to have any prolongment, the second only 

 a slight one, and the third a strong one. The length of the tars 



