400 Mr. G. J. Arrow on Rutelid Coleoptera. 
Pseudosinghala conjuga, sp. 0. 
Breviter cylindrica, pallide testacea, ubique metallico-nitens; pro- 
thorace (lateribus exceptis), scutello, elytrorum sutura (antice et 
postice latius), abdominis medio, tibiis tarsisque maris nigro-eneis, 
femine rufo-testaceis; capite rugoso, clypeo late arcuato; pro- 
thorace valde convexo, subtiliter punctato, margine postica regu- 
lariter arcuata, lateribus fortiter arcuatis, angulis anticis acutis, 
posticis valde obtusis ; scutello fere equaliter trilaterali, vix punc- 
tato; elytris fortiter punctato-striatis, macula lata suturali vix 
ad margines anticam et posticam attingente medio utrinque 
abrupte interrupta; pygidio disperse punctato, cum pectoris et 
abdominis lateribus femoribusque pallidis; corpore toto nudo ; 
tibiis anticis fortiter bidentatis, tarsorum 4 anteriorum unguibus 
externis fissis. 
Long. 6 mm. 
Hab. §. India, Nilgiri Hills. 
In this species there is a slight metallic gloss over the 
entire surface, but the dark markings are in the male deep 
blackish bronze and in the female reddish, becoming in the 
latter regularly paler from the head backwards, until the 
posterior division of the broad sutural mark becomes indis- 
tinguishable from the testaceous ground-colour. ‘The femora 
in both sexes are pale and the tibie and tarsi of the colour of 
the dorsal markings according to the sex. 
As the result of a study of further examples I have to 
confess to having, in the case of Hylamorpha rufimana, 
Arrow, fallen into the trap against which | have warned 
others, this being nothing but a sexual form—the female of 
HI, elegans, Burm, My error is due to the fact that the two 
specimens from which my description was drawn up were 
from a separate collection, and the only two females in the 
British Museum collection, as compared with a large series of 
the other sex. This is very strange, especially as ina collec- 
tion lent to me by Mr. H. 8. Gorham, which I have recently 
examined, the males are less than twice as numerous as the 
females. Burmeister apparently did not know the latter, for 
he has described the sexes as “@ bright green; ¢ with legs 
and elytra olivaceous,” which is quite wrong, the discoloured 
forms occurring equally in both sexes. The real distinction 
consists in the front legs of the female being of a castaneous 
colour and the middle and hind tibiz brilliant golden green. 
The front tibiz are also shorter and more strongly toothed in 
this sex, the third tooth being past the middle. In the male 
