188 [January,' 
Ilerbst (Ratzeburg), who is prior to Marsham by a short period ; and I certainly 
think that Gyllenhal's description is appKcable to continental types of Tomicus 
hicolor in the Brit. Mus., which as certainly do not agree with (though closely 
allied to) Mr. Morley's insect. However, I think it not unlikely that the latter 
may really be Marsham's fuscus, and that Gyllenhal was in error in thinking it 
identical with his species. Apart from the very concise Marshamian description, 
there appear to be no means of identifying this species. Mr. Waterhouse, in hia 
Catalogue, sinks it, with a query, as a synonym of Tomicus bispinus, Ratz. ; noting, 
however, that the fuscus of Stephens' Illustr. cannot be referable to that species. 
The description in the " Manual " agrees well enough with Gyllenhal (being probably 
adapted from him), but the exponents of fuscus in the Stephensian cabinet, are, a8 
pointed out in the synonomy of Wat. Cat., one hispinus and one Mdens. I find no 
Marshamian type of fuscus in the Brit. Mus. ; though a part of Kirby's collection, 
containing many Marshamian insects, passed to that Institution from the Entomo- 
logical Society, when the latter body abandoned its museum. It has been considered 
that Marsham's insect is villosus, — on what grounds I know not ; but, when we 
consider that Marsham knew that species well, and points out characters for his 
fuscus not reconcileable with it, and that Gyllenhal, who received an insect 
purporting to be a type of Marsham's species, was also well acquainted with 
villosus, that idea seems scarcely credible. It may be an argument (however 
slight) in favour of the consideration that Marsham's insect is not identical with 
Herbst's, that the former author, though quoting the latter in neighbouring species, 
makes no reference to his hicolor, with which he fails to identify his own insect. On 
the whole, the species being new to us, and, as far as I am aware, not described at 
all (if it be distinct from Marsham's /uscms; and certainly not adequately described, 
if it he that species) 1 think the better course would be to name it, provisionally, 
Marshami. This course will, probably, ensure our being soon acquainted with its 
correct specific appellation, if it be already described in any publication unknown 
to me. 
Mr. Morley's insect, as far as I can judge from the examples that have come 
under my notice, varies in size from rather less than I lin. to 1^ lin., or rather 
more, — equalling T. hidens in its average size. It is pitchy black in colour, with 
the elytra pitchy-red, often much lighter than the thorax ; and is set with long, 
scattered, thin, pale hairs (which are most evident behind), with a thicker tuft in 
front of the head. The thorax is opaque, and transversely tuberculate- scabrous 
in front, the scabrosity gradually diminishing behind and not running into 
punctures ; the hinder part is, however, slightly shining, especially in the middle. 
The elytra are much more shining and rather narrower than the thorax, cylindrical, 
elongate, parallel, and laterally somewhat abruptly rounded at the apex, which is 
unarmed in both sexes, and not perceptibly flattened, only rather abruptly rounded 
off. They are rather strongly and closely punctate-striate, the interstices being 
also evidently punctured, the punctures forming as it were rather irregular minor 
supplemental striae. Compared with hicolor, it is less hairy, narrower, with tho 
thorax behind not so shining, and tuberculated instead of punctured, wanting also , 
the obsolete transverse dopr ession behind the middle, and with the elytra not 
nearly so evidently (if at all) flattened obliquely behind. 
