I have located two glossy Elaphinis delagoensis specimens. They look like completely different beasts, but both have been reliably identified. The one from Chuniespoort has the subhumeral arches as deeply excavated as the beetle in this observation, and its dorsal sculpture is almost exactly like that of the mystery chafer here. It is a pitch black specimen. The other glossy specimen, from Hluhluwe, has its colours patterned differently from the mystery chafer, but its dorsal colours are exactly the same as here: very dark brown, almost black, but still brown; with flavous patches of a foxy orange graduating to a yellowish fawn. Both glossy specimens have a couple of small, discrete cretaceous spots, just like the beetle in this observation, although the arrangement of these spots are different among all three specimens.

So far, so good.

Despite his recent self-doubting and talking to himself besides, it was vynbos who lead me to evaluate the mystery beetle here as possibly an Elaphinis species, something I did not consider previously. So I consulted the Blue Book** ::

Among the critical generic characteristics of Elaphinis there are these:

• Scutellum with lateral margins concave; scutellum longer than wide, with its apex rounded. YES..
• Elytra clearly with three longitudinal ridges. YES.
• Areas between the elytral ridges with double rows of punctate striae. YES. With some imagination.
• Subhumeral arch deep. YES.
• Elytral sides diverging behind subhumeral arch. YES.
• Anterior pronotal margin with a rounded median tubercle. YES. Visible in second picture..

.

The verdict: This is a species of the fruit chafer genus Elaphinis.

Recommendation: vynbos, take up your bed and please add the identification that you are responsible for in the ID box, above. Two species of Elpahinis can reasonably be expected in the Kruger National Park [this observation], namely the so-called Variable Fruit Chafer (Elaphinis delagoensis), and the smaller Elaphinis pumila. The latter species was considered "possibly extinct" by Holm & Marais (1992); it is at least extremely rare or extremely elusive, and has not been recollected since the 19th century.

Then I shall "I agree!" with a confident click, and go home.
.

Thank you for the puzzle of these four observations, Peter Webb. It was a good challenge.

.
** The Blue Book (Holm & Marais 1992) is called the Blue Book for two reasons: It is a blue book; and there are very many drawings of genitalia in the book.