202 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HIST, SOCIETY, Vol. XXVIII. 
its lateral angles) are not green at all, the former being violaceous and the latter 
testaceous. Again, though in certain aspects the pronotum appears to be 
green, its real ground colour seems to be testaceous, as is also that of the antenne, 
the mandibles, the sides of the face, and the whole of all the legs. The vertex, 
however, and the tempora are distinctly green, like the mesonotum and scutel- 
lum, but there is a slight touch of a warmer colour (reddish-golden) between 
the ocelli and the compound eyes. Seen from beneath the whole body appears 
testaceous and polished, except the green mesopleures, and occasional reflections 
of the same colour playing over the legs which become visible enly in certain 
lights. 
But apart from mere colour, it seems to be certainly distinct from roseum by 
more important characters. 
(1) The antenne are shorter and stouter, with joints 2, 3, and 4 subequal 
but joint 4 slightly longer than the others. (In rosewm, joint 3 is evidently 
longer than 4, and fully twice as long as 2.) 
(2) The green areas of therthorax are very shining, and their puncturation 
irregular and mostly very sparse. (In rosewm the whole thorax is almost 
opaque, its puncturation being uniform and close.) This difference is apparent 
even to the naked eye. 
(3) The abdomen, especially its basal segment, is also much more sparsely 
punctured than that of rosewm, the punctures being everywhere separated by 
intervals much larger than themselves. 
(4) The face, which is bright metallic green in the middle, but testaceous 
at the sides and below the antenne, is clothed with very short silvery pubes- 
cence, conspicuous in some lights, but in others quite invisible, and not 
concealing the sculpture of the integument. This is very small and shallow 
(sub-coriaceous) and contrasts strongly with the much coarser rugose punctu- 
ration of the vertex. (Inrosewm ¢ the face is deep-blue, the few hairs on its sur- 
face are fairly long but quite inconspicuous, not appearing silvery (so far as 1 
can see) in any aspect, and the integument is punctured very much in the same 
style as that of the vertex.) 
(5) The wings are perfectly clear. (In roseum they are distinctly infuscated.) 
3. Chrysis fuscipennis, Brullé.—1 2, Amara (M), 28th October. 
4. Chrysis palliditarsis, Spin—3 ¢ 5,4 2, “‘on Acacia,” Amara (M). 
10th June. 
2 2 2, Amara, 13th-17th June. 
5. Chrysis blanchardi, Luc.—1 @, Amara (M), 6th September. 
6. Chrysis maculicornis, KI—3 @ @, Amara (M), 10th June ‘“‘on Acacia,’ 
14th June, 18th August. 
7. Chrysis exigua, Mocs.—1 @, Amara (M), April. 
5 2 2, Amara, 10th and 13th June ‘‘ on Acacia.”’ 
8. Chrysis ignita, L._—2 2 2, Talysh (P), 18th July. 
9. Chrysis scutellaris, F.—1 2, Amara (M), ‘“‘ on Sunflower’’ 12th September. 
10. [Chrysis cyanopyga, Dahlb.—1 9, Beit-Na’ama (M), 10th April 1919.— 
Captain Evans. ] 
The last 8 species (3 to 10) all belong to the Section ‘‘ Tetrachrysis.”’ 
ll. [Chrysis (Hexachrysis) stilboides, Spin.—1 specimen taken “‘at or near 
Amara,” 18th August 1918. 
I omitted to take note of the 
sex.—Captain Evans. | 
12. Chrysis buxtoni, n. sp.—I1 ¢, Amara (M), 10th June. 
This must also, no doubt, be reckoned as a Hexachrysis, though four of its 
so-called “teeth ’’ only are really tooth-like. The outermost pair are /ateral, 
situate one at each end of the series of fovee. The intermediate pair are apical, 
