112 
Mr. Charles J. Galian on the 
the genus. The elytra are relatively shorter, and the 
antennae much less dilated (very feebly so in comparison 
with those of aliena) ; but in other structural characters 
it agrees very well. 
Callichrcma, Latreille. 
] 05. Callichroma columhinum, Guer., Revue Zoologique, 
1838, p. 282 ; Duval, Sagra's Hist. Cuba vii., 
p. 262, pi. 10, fig. 3. 
Ceramhyx mrens, Drury {nec Linn.). 
Hah. Haiti, Jamaica, and Cuba. 
106. Callichroma vittatum, Fabr. 
Ceramhyx vittatus, Fabr., Syst. Entom., p. 166 (1775); 
Oliv., Entom. iv.. No. 67, p. 32, pi. 2, fig. 10. 
{t)Ceramhyx ochroijns^Yoety Cat. ii., p. 12, pi. 10, fig. 41. 
(?) Lepturaviridiaurea, Degeer, Mem. v., p. 145, pi. 15, 
fig. 1, 1775. 
Callichroma riigicolle, Guerin, Icon. Eegne An. iii., 
p. 220 ; Bates, Trans. Ent. Soc, 1870, p. 334. 
Callichroma assintilatum, White, Cat. Col. B. M., 
Longic. i., p. 158. 
Callichroma scitulum, Pasc, Tr. Ent. Soc. (3) v., p. 292. 
. Hah, Haiti (Tweedie) Brazil, Guiana, Colombia, and 
Central America as far as Mexico. 
AntenDce, tibiae, and tarsi black ; femora fulvous ; head, pro- 
thorax, and elytra metallic- green ; prothorax with a soft black, 
velvet-like, band along each side of the middle of the disk, with 
the narrow median space between the bands and the lateral parts 
of the pronotum, external to them, naked, nitid and transversely 
strigose. Elytra each with a dorsal and a marginal velvety band of 
a violet-black colour ; with a sutural baud of a green colour, over- 
laid by a thin silky grey pubescence, the short hairs of which have 
a transverse direction ; with the bright green band lying between 
the dorsal and lateral bands, covered with a fine, close and some- 
what rugulose punctuation. The prothorax has a rather feeble 
conical tubercle on the middle of each side, and the antcro-lateral 
tubercle or callosity is not strongly marked. 
Bates (Biologia C. A. Col. v.) has correctly given the 
synonymy of this species so far as the last three names 
are concerned. But his reference to the Fabrician type 
[vide Trans. Ent. Soc, 1870, p. 334, note), which he 
evidently did not closely examine, is certainly misleading. 
What he took to be the vittatus of Fabricius is^ no doubt, 
