the Rutelid Genus Adorodocia. OM 
Processus prosternalis lamelliformis, postice parum productus. 
Mesosternum acuminatum, non productum. Ungues multo 
ineequales, pedum quatuor anteriorum majores ante apicem minu~ 
tissime fissi, posticorum simplici. Pygidium integrum. Seg- 
mentum ultimum ventrale emarginatum, non fissum. Elytra 
distincte membranaceo-marginata. 
It must not be forgotten that this diagnosis is drawn up 
from the male alone and that one or two of the characters 
cited will probably apply only to that sex. The mouth-parts 
are as in Adorodocia, but the clypeus is semicircular instead 
of pointed. The prosternal process has the same compressed 
form, but is not strongly produced backwards as in Adoro- 
docia. ‘The claws, again, in the two anterior pairs of legs are 
minutely cleft beyond the middle, whereas in the other genus 
both sexes have them equally divided at the tip. The mem- 
branous margin to the elytra is again present. Finally, the 
different form of the last abdominal segment is correlated to 
the entire difference in the genitalia already mentioned. 
Pseudadorodocia enigma, sp. n. 
Supra omnino pallide testacea, prothorace vage bimaculato, sub- 
depressa, modice elongata, undique breviter albo-setosa ; capite 
magno, oculis prominentibus, clypeo semicirculari, cum fronte (ab 
illo linea recta demarcata) grosse punctato; prothorace valde 
transyerso, lateribus regulariter curvatis, angulis anticis paulo 
acutis, dorso grosse irregulariter punctato, utroque latere linea 
yaga fusca ornato ; scutello lateribus punctato ; elytris irregulariter 
et confluenter punctatis, punctis lineis longitudinalibus indistinctis 
formantibus lateribus fere parallelis ; pygidio corporeque subtus 
rufis, illo cum pectore longius hirsuto; tibiis anticis bidentatis, 
dente tertio obsoleto. 
Long. 16 mm. 
Hab. Madagascar, Antananarivo. 
The specimen was found by Mr. Kingdon and has been in 
the Museum since 1879. It deceptively resembles Adoro- 
docia strigata, Waterh., but is rather smaller and narrower, 
in addition to which the semicircular clypeus affords the most 
apparent distinction. The description of Adoretus maculi- 
collis, Fairm., applies very nearly to this insect, but the 
former is said to have dark marks upon the vertex, a narrow 
dark lateral margin to the elytra, and the under surface 
*“ vage coerulescens,”’ of none of which is there any indication 
in my type. 
I have learnt just before the publication of this note that 
Mr. F. Bates has three specimens of this insect in his collec- 
tion. Mr. Bates has kindly examined these for me, and finds 
