INSECTA. 207 



slightly diverging from the base up to the anterior third, thence 

 converging to the apex ; pronotum convex, minutely and rather 

 thickly punctured, its greatest width about twice the median 

 length. Elytra minutely and very closely punctured. Ab- 

 domen fuscous-testaceous. Underside of body and legs thinly 

 clothed with short grey hairs. Antennae a little longer than 

 half the body, the third joint about equal to the fifth, the fourth 

 slightly longer, the sixth and following joints subequal or 

 scarcely perceptibly diminishing in length, each shorter than the 

 fifth; each of the joints from the third to the tenth slightly 

 thickened towards the apex. 



Epipleures of elytra moderately broad in front, gradually 

 narrowed posteriorly, and entirely disappearing just beyond the 

 middle. Tibiae unarmed. First joint of posterior tarsi equal 

 in length to the two succeeding joints united. Anterior coty- 

 loid cavities closed in behind. 



Long. 5J millim. 



This species is smaller than 0. mutabilis, Sahib. (Peric. Entom. 

 Species Insect. (1823) p. 64, pi. 3. figs. 8-10), the prothorax is 

 less rounded at the sides and the whole insect less ovate in 

 form ; but it agrees with that species in having short elytral 

 epipleures, closed anterior cotyloid cavities, appendiculate claws. 



So that, on the whole (considering O. mutabilis, Sahib., as 

 the type of the genus), the present species seems best placed in 

 Ootheca. 



Chapuis, in his characterization of this genus (' Genera des 

 Coleopteres/ xi. p. 173), has stated that the anterior cotyloid 

 cavities are open behind. But this statement cannot be 

 accepted as correct, unless Chapuis was mistaken in his identi- 

 fication of Crioceris mutabilis, Sahib., the species which he 

 names as the type of his genus. (C. J. G.) 



SpilocepJialus viridipennis, Jacoby. (Tab. I. fig. 12.) 



Spilocephalus viridipennis, Jacoby, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1888, p. 202, 

 pl.vii. fig. 12($ ?). 



Mr. Distant has taken one male specimen which I refer with 

 some doubt to this species. This specimen not only differs 

 from the type by certain well-marked characters which I con- 



