1900.] ON THE RHYNCHOTA IN THE HOPE COLLECTION. 807 diffuse. White lineation of body much reduced ; the upper shoulder-stripe very short on one side in the single skin and absent on the other. Lower shoulder-stripe broken into spots. Vertical bands inconspicuous, three on one side and four on the other, but only the two middle bands at all prominent. Five stripes mentioned in Heuglin's description. Female. General colour bright rufous, but tbe nape and the middle line of the back over a breadth of about 4 to 6 inches fuscous brown, in unusual contrast to the rufous sides. White stripes numerous and conspicuous ; the lower shoulder-stripe pro-minent, well-developed, continuous, rather longer than usual ; upper shoulder-stripe, on the other hand, narrow and little developed. Vertical stripes very numei-ous, 9 on one side and 10 on the other, therefore more in number (though hardly so broad and sharply defined) than in T. s. scriptus. Basal length of male skull (c.) 196 mm., greatest breadth 90. Horns (in straight line) 258 mm. Female skull: basal length 193 mm., greatest breadth 86, orbit to muzzle 107. This Nilotic form of the Common Bushbuck is distinguished by having its female more numerously striped than the male, Ihe sexes being about equal in this respect in T. s. septus, and the male more striped than the female in T. s. ornatus ; also by its well-haired neck, which separates it from T. s.fasciatus. Singly the sexes may be distinguished — the male by its few and the female by its many stripes from the corresponding sexes of the allied subspecies, and the female is also characterized by the contrasted fuscous area on the back. 4. Revision of the Rhynchota belonging to the Family Pentatomidce in the Hope Collection at Oxford. By W. L. Distant. [Received June 18, 1900.] (Plates LII. & LIII.) In the years 1837 and 1842 there were published at Oxford Parts I. and II. of ' A Catalogue of Hemiptera in the Collection of the Rev. F. W. Hope,' which still form part of the well-known " Hope Collection " in the Oxford Museum. Part I. bears no name of author, and the descriptions therein have very often been ascribed to Hope, as his name is appended to the nomenclature. Part II. is stated to have been written by the late Prof. Westwood, and there is no doubt that he was the author of both, and that conclusion is now generally followed by entomologists. The publication consists of short Latin descriptions of a con-siderable number of species considered as then undescribed ; but of these many now rank only as synonyms and mostly require generic revision — a result which causes little surprise when the
BioStor
