BULLETIN MUSEUM 01 COMPABATIV] lOdLOOl 



Cottum ol luual genera] form; more then twice as iride u bead; in length 

 about equal to the two succeeding eomitt 



rerj (tending on eaoh Bide below level ol pleurites, with dorsum 



strongly arehed. Caudal margin oi tergites below "n each ride essentially 

 ttraight, the eaudoventral corner rectangular, slightly narrowly rounded. 

 Caudal edge ol pleurite beginning eotauy in fronl ol caudal corner ol tergite 

 unci running caudad ol meead, straight, inner caudal corner s little rounded, 

 mesal margin straight, a little oblique. 



Somites not constricted, the prosonites depressed only ■ little anteriorly. 

 Body proportionately broad and heavy. Hans moderate in length, n<>t stout, 

 uniform. 



Number of segments (female type), fifty-nine. 



Length, to near 15 mm.; width, near 1.2 mm. 



257. Siphonotus socius, sp. now 



Type.— M. C. Z. 4,962. Paratype — M. C. Z. 4,963. Solomons: 

 Fulakora (W. M. Mann). 



General color fulvous of a weak ferruginous cast. Antennae dark, purplish 

 black, especially distally. 



Head similar to that of preceding species but in side view more pointed 

 below with curve of face weakly indented at beginning of frontal region below 

 which more strongly convex than in the other species, in upper clypeal region 

 somewhat incurving and then convex above lower end. Differing from that 

 species obviously in the antennae which are smaller, being both shorter and 

 more slender and much more nearly cylindrical with the sixth article more 

 strongly narrowed distad and all articles shorter. 



Collum differs in having lower posterior angle more acute, the lateral 

 margin in front of it weakly widely concave. 



The transverse suture of segments in general more sharply and deeply 

 impressed. Body as a whole somewhat slender and more strongly narrowed 

 cephalad. 



Number of segments from near fifty-six to eighty-two. 



Length, to 13 or 14 mm. 



This form is very close to the preceding species from which it is 

 separated with some hesitation, though when the two are placed 

 together it may be distinguished by differences in color, robustness, 

 and especially in form of antennae and face. Unfortunately no males 

 are available for comparison. 



