354 Rev. II. S. Goiham on 



Prosymnus, Laporte de Castelnau. 



ProKi/tnmis, Laporte de Castelnau, Silb. Rev. vol. iv. 1836, p. 61. 

 jRyparus, Spin. Mon. Cler. ii. p. 73 (1844). 



Prosymnus villas us, sp. n. 



Brunneus ; capite prothoraceque creberrime, subrugose, conflucnter, 

 elytris grosse rugose punctatis, omnium longius tomentosis ; an- 

 tennis capitis prothoracisque longitudine ; ore, corpore subtus 

 fcmoribusquenigro-brunneis; antennarum articulis tertioet quarto 

 quam secundus sesqui longioribus, articulis 5-8 secundo sub- 

 a?qua]ibus, tril>us ultimis clavam lasam prebentibus, ultimo ovato. 



Long. 6-b millim. 



Hob. Mashonaland, Salisbury {Marshall). 



Obscure brown above, the thorax a shade more darkly so 

 than the elytra j the head and thorax are so densely clothed 

 with long upright hairs that the punctuation is seen with 

 difficulty, except where the pubescence is worn off; it is then 

 Been to be quite thick, granular, and often confluent ; the inter- 

 stices are shining. The thorax is nearly as broad as the elytra 

 at their base ; its sides are finely margined and reflexed, but 

 this can only be seen when the hairs are worn off. The 

 elytra are evenly covered with large variolose pits, with 

 rugose interstices, often confluent, without arrangement. 

 The underside is darker, pitchy brown, obsoletely and not 

 deeply punctured ; the femora are dark, but the trochanters 

 and parts of the abdomen, the trophi, the tibia3, and tarsi are 

 ferruginous. In two examples all the body and the whole of 

 the legs are pale rusty red. 



Three example.?. 



That this in.sect is allied to Ryparus tomentosus, Spin., is 

 obvious ; that it is distinct is, I think, equally certain. The 

 colour, the length of the joints of the antenna?, and the punc- 

 tuation are different both from the description and the figure; 

 in the latter the third joint of the antennae is shown as rather 

 shorter than the second, whereas in F. villosus it and the 

 fourth are half as long again, while the whole antenna is 

 much longer proportionally in our insect. Besides this, 

 numerous points of difference exist. That it is different 

 from rrosyrnnus cribripenniSj Lap., it would be impossible 

 from his short description, or that in Klug (Cler. p. 394), to 

 tell ; but the difference in locality justifies me in the belief 

 that it will be found to be so. 



In the Munich Catalogue and in Lohde's Catalogue recently 

 published these names are given as synonyms, on what 

 ground I know not, as the insects are of great rarity in 



