﻿162 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



not cannot affect their systematic position, consequently Lupero- 

 cnemus must be placed in the Halticince, probably near Sutrea, 

 Baly. 



Hespera sericea, Weise (PI. I. fig. 11). 

 This genus, the type of which has quite the appearance of a 

 species of Luperocles is much distinguished by the fine pubes- 

 cence which covers the entire upper surface as well as by the 

 shape of the thorax and the comparatively slender legs. I may 

 add to the description of the author, that the space separating 

 the basal lobe of the prosternum from the thoracic basal margin 

 is so small as to be scarcely perceptible, so that the anterior coxal 

 cavities may almost be considered closed; in most of the speci- 

 mens obtained by Mr. Pratt, which agree otherwise with the 

 author's description, the first three joints of the antennas and the 

 base of the anterior femorse are fulvous. 



Crepidodera obscuritarsis (?), Motsch. 

 The short description of the author agrees sufficiently with 

 the specimens obtained at Chang Yang to refer them to this 

 species. The insect is of a reddish-fulvous colour, with the 

 terminal eight joints of the antenna?, the apex of the posterior 

 femorse and the tarsi fuscous or nearly black ; the antennae have 

 their third and fourth joints equal ; the thorax is nearly twice as 

 broad as long, the sides are rounded before the middle, and the 

 anterior angles are oblique and thickened, the surface is trans- 

 versely convex with a few extremely fine punctures, but the deep 

 transverse sulcation is much more distinctly punctured and 

 bounded at the sides by a deep longitudinal groove. The elytra 

 are finely punctate- striate, the striae themselves rather sinuate 

 and very indistinct near the apex, the interstices are not visibly 

 punctured (which does not agree with Motschulsky's description) ; 

 the under side and legs are finely covered with greyish pubes- 

 cence. Apparently rather common. 



Chalcoides picipes ?, Weise. 

 I refer the specimens contained in this collection to this 

 species, although I do not quite see the differences between it and 

 G. chloris, Foudr. I referred to the latter species specimens 

 obtained by Mr. Lewis at Japan, and do not find any perceptible 

 difference in the Chinese specimens, which are variable in regard 

 to sculpture and colour. Weise compares C. picipes to G. 

 aurata, Marsh, from which it is no doubt distinct, but his 

 description of G. chloris is almost identical with G. picipes (both 

 have the first four joints of the antennas and other characters in 

 common), and but little reliance can be placed on slight varia- 

 tions in sculpture and colour, as our European varieties show. 



