354 Rey. H. 8. Gorham on 
ProsymMNus, Laporte de Castelnau. 
Prosymnus, Laporte de Castelnau, Silb. Rey. vol. iv. 1836, p. 51. 
Ryparus, Spin. Mon, Cler. ii. p. 73 (1844). 
Prosymnus villosus, sp. n. 
Brunneus ; capite prothoraceque creberrime, subrugose, confluenter, 
elytris grosse rugose punctatis, omnium longius tomentosis ; an- 
tennis capitis prothoracisque longitudine; ore, corpore subtus 
femoribusque nigro-brunneis; antennarum articulis tertio et quarto 
quam secundus sesqui longioribus, articulis 5-8 secundo sub- 
equalibus, tribus ultimis clavam laxam prebentibus, ultimo ovato. 
Long. 6-8 millim. 
Hab. Mashonaland, Salisbury (Marshall). 
Obscure brown above, the thorax a shade more darkly so 
than the elytra; 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 1s then 
seen to be quite thick, granular, and often confluent ; the inter- 
stices are shining. ‘lhe 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 tibie, and tarsi are 
ferruginous. In two examples all the body and the whole of 
the legs are pale rusty red. 
Three examples. 
That this insect 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 antenne, and the punc- 
tuation are different both from the description and the figure ; 
in the latter the third joint of the antenne is shown as rather 
shorter than the second, whereas in P. vil/osus 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 Prosymnus cribripennis, 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 
