18 Further Notes on Australian Coleoptera WITH Descriptions of New Genera and Species. By the Rev. T. Blackburn, B.A. [Read May 3, 1898.] XXIII. LAMELLICORNES. MELOLONTHiNi (Tribe). This aggregate of genera appertains, in Lacordaire's arrange- ment, to the second "Legion" of the family ^^Lamellicornes" on account of some of the abdominal stigmata being placed on the ventral segments. Lacordaire divides this second " Legion" into *' Tribes," of which the Melolonthini is one and is distinguished by those of the abdominal stigmata which are placed on the ven- tral segments not diverging strongly from the line in which the dorsal and ventral segments meet. The "Tribe" Melolonthini is divided by Lacordaire into " sub-tribes," of which, so far as I know, only four are represented in Australia, — viz. Systellopides (separated since Lacordaire's time from his sub-tribePac%po(^ic?es) Sericides, Sericoides, and Melolontliides (true). The Systellopide, are distinguished from the rest of the above-named sub-tribes by the atrophy of the maxillary lobe in combination with the posi- tion of the labrum on the same plane with the clypeus ; while the true Melolonthides differ from the remaining two by the front cox^e being (not conical and prominent but) transverse. Lacordaire distinguishes the Serkides and Sericoides by the relation between their clypeus and labrum, the latter being in the Sericides intimately connected (soude) with the clypeus so as to be "indistinct" while in the Sericoides it is "free." Here it is to be noted (as Lacordaire remarks) that in some genera (e.g. J)iphucephala) the clypeus is divided by a suture which gives its front part the appearance of a free labrum, and it must be admitted that there are genera in which it is exceedingly difficult to say that the piece in question is not the real labrum. As an instance I would mention Phyllotocus. Comparing an example of this genus with some of the Systellopides I cannot discos er any difference of structure justifying the assertion that the front piece of the head is a part of the clypeus in one and the labrum in the other. It must be remembered doubtless that Lacordaire 19 does not appear to have actually examined any Systellopid spe- cies, and that it is Dr. Sharp who states that it is the labrum which in the Systellopides is attached to the front of the clypeus and is on the same level with it. I do not venture to assert that either of these accomplished entomologists (both extremely eminent anatomists) is wrong, — which would be highly presump- tuous in any but a specialist on anatomy, — but I draw attention to the matter in order to show that Lacordaire's method of dis- tinguishing the Sericides from the Sericoides is at any rate not easy of application to the ordinary student. However, there can be no doubt that these sub-tribes of Melolonthini form two very natural and distinct aggregates in each of which moreover there is a highly characteristic relation between the clypeus and labrum, and I think this can be expressed in terms (different from those of Lacordaire) which at any rate as a supplementary statement of characters will be found useful inasmuch as it avoids the necessity of determining in difficult cases whether the front piece of the head is or is not a true labrum. In the Sericides, whether we regard the front piece of the head as a labrum or follow Lacordaire in regarding it as an extension of the clypeus and the labrum as invisible, it stands good that the front face of the front piece of the head looked at from in front has very little downward vertical or oblique development, so that the insertion of the palpi is very little below the plane of the clypeus, but in the Sericoides it is far otherwise. In them (and also in the true Melolonthides), the labrum is attached to the clypeus at a position considerably below the plane of the upper surface of the latter, so that if the latter be looked at from in front it seems to be strongly thickened downward (in some species obliquely downward and hindward) and the labrum is attached to it at a point considerably down this thickened front face. As in the Sericides so in Sericoides there are genera in which the labrum is not very easy to see as an organ distinct from the clypeus, and moreover the labrum itself is of very variable form in the Sericoides (in some genera even becoming an erect lamina the apex of which rises considerably above the plane of the clypeus) ; nevertheless a result of the attachment of the base of the labrum being as indicated above is that the palpi are inserted considerably below the plane of the upper surface of the clypeus and all the observations I have made confirm the opinion that their being so inserted is reliable evidence that the relation of the clypeus and the labrum are of the Sericoid rather than the Sericid type. The adoption of this s^iew of the distinctive characters of the Australian Sericides and Sericoides involves some little re-adjust- 20 ment of the species to be attributed to those sub-tribes respectively , inasmuch as it renders necessary the removal of 3fcechidius from the former to the latter and of Pachytricha and Phcenognatha from the latter to the former. These transfers, however, appear to me to tend altogether to a more natural classification. All the three genera affected by it are extremely isolated in their characters, and it is probably open to question whether each of them may not eventually be regarded as representing a distinct sub-tribe, but even so it seems to me that in a natural arrangement the sub-tribes containing Phcenognatha and Pachytricha would stand before the Sericides in the Melolonthini, and that containing- Mcechidias certainly after the Sericoides. If the arrangement I thus suggest be followed it will have the effect of associating together in the Sericides species having remarkable sexual characters in the front tarsi (unless Phcenognatha of which I know only one sex be an exception) and in the Sericoides species not exhibiting such sexual characters (or at least only in a slight degree and in occasional members of a genus) and also of making the Sericides of Australia consist entirely (unless Epholcis Phcenognatha and Pachytricha, which I have not seen alive, be exceptions) of genuinely flower-frequenting day-fliers, and the Sericoides (so far as I know, and I have collected nearly all the genera) contain no genus at all with similar habits ; for although a few Heteronyces and Liparetri are sometimes to be met with on flowers (as indeed what insect are not 1 I once found some flowers thickly studded with a Hydrophilid) certainly neither Liparetrus nor Heteronyx can be reckoned a flower-frequenting genus. Since the publication of Lacordaire's volume dealing with the Lamellicornes numerous Australian genera have been added, and as their diagnoses are scattered over a wide field of literature it seems desirable before passing to the description of some new species that are before me to make some remarks on the aggre- gates to which those new species are referable. I will begin with the SERICIDES (sub-tribe). Excluding Mcechidius and including Pachytricha and Phcenognatha (as proposed above), four genera known to Lacordaire would form the Australian contingent of this sub- tribe. To these five genera must now be added (including two new ones described below and one formerly described under a nom. prseocc). A. Head (at any rate of the male) armed with a horn ... .-. ... .- Phmnognatha. AA, Head unarmed. B. Each claw bidentate beneath ... ... Pachytricha. BB. Claws not bidentate beneath. 21 C. Hind coxje elongate. D. Hind tarsi with claws elongate slender and simple. E. Basal four joints of front tarsi of male together much longer than apical process of tibia. F. Intermediate claws similar to hind claws FF. Intermediate claws short (in male thickened and with long appendages) EE. Basal four joints of front tarsi to- gether shorter than apical process of tibia DD. Hind tarsi with short claws. E. These claws simple EE. These claws appendiculate CC. Hind coxte short and parallel. D. Eyes free or nearly so DD. Front part of eyes divided by a canthus Phyllotocufi. PhuUotocidium, gen. n. Oheirrhamphica, gen. n. Neophyllotocu<, gen. n. Cheiragra. Diphucephala. Epholcis. PHYLLOTOCUS. Many of the species of this genus are incapable of certain identification where comparison of types is not feasible. Unfor- tunately 30 names are attributed to it. In Trans. Ent. Soc. N.S.W., I., pp. 80 ifec, the late Sir W. Macleay published a review of the then existing names and added nine more, but although he complained of the imperfection of Boisduval's descriptions his own descriptions were of the same kind as Boisduval's, — one of them consisting of eight words of Latin and 13 of English in which no definite character is mentioned apart from color, and the rest are not much better. I have had the advantage of examining some of Sir W. Macleay's types and therefore am in a position to attempt a contribution towards the elucidation of the genus. In Trans. Ent. Soc, KS.W., II., p. 187, Sir W. Macleay described two additional species, and in P.L.S., N.S.W., 1887, p. 225, another. Although most of Boisduval's descriptions are in my opinion incapable of being definitely attributed to any particular species it seems to me desirable, as Sir W. Macleay has applied them to species in his collection, to accept his identifications and to let the insects in question bear Boisduval's names. These names are pr^eusta, riifipennis, australis, and mcestus. The first of them {prcBusta) Sir W. Macleay regards (correctly I think) as a syno- nym of Mac/eayi, Fischer, which last is a species that can be confidently identified. Boisduval described another species {Lottini) which he referred to Phyllotocus only with doubt and which Sir W. Macleay believed to be a Liparetrus ; it certainly may be disregarded. 22 Erichson described one species (P. bimaculatus) ; it is easily recognisable. Blanchard followed with three species (erythropterus, navicularis and ustulatus) ; all are easy to identify. Burmeister was the next describer, and he also added two names {discoidalis and pectoralis) the former of which he gives as Mr. W. S. Macleay's name (no doubt MS.) and states that it is identical with australis, Boisd. It seems to me decidedly that it is a variety of the species that Sir W. Macleay has called australis, Boisd., and that the insect which Sir W. Macleay sub- sequently named iridescens is the same thing. Pectoralis (as Sir W. Macleay points out) is not a Phyllotocus. In 1858 Bohemann described three species (inarginicoUis, ohlongus and velutinus) which Sir W. Macleay says (I think correctly) are all founded on varieties of the species that he calls mcestus, JBoisd. Then Sir W. Macleay follows with his 12 names on which I make the following remarks. Assimilis is excessively close to Macleayi, Fisch. Its author states that the only good specific character to separate it by is a slight groove on its forehead. After examining a long series I have failed to find such a groove constantly present or absent in either species, and doubt whether the two are distinct. Kingi is undoubtedly a good and distinct species. I believe it to be the insect which Boisd. called rujipennis, but as Sir W. Macleay has attributed that name to another insect I shall not disturb his nomenclature. Marginipennis has puzzled me considerably. Its author states that it is abundant in the neighbourhood of Sydney ; yet I have seen nothing among the numerous Phyllotoci collected by me (or sent to me from) near Sydney which agrees with the description. Unfortunately I can find no reference to it in the notes I made when examining Sir W. Macleay's types, — so I must pass it by with the remark that unless there is some clerical or printer's error in the description it is probably a good species unknown to me. Iridescens (as noted above) I have little doubt is identical with atistralis, Boisd. Palliatus is decidedly a var. (not I think sexual, as Sir W. Macleay conjectures) of discoidalis. Marginatus its author conjectures to be the female of marginipennis. Judging by the description I have no doubt it is a form of that species, though I doubt the difference being sexual. Ruficollis I cannot identify confidently. The colours are differently described in the Latin diagnosis and the English 23 following it. It is possible that the species I call ruficollis in the following tabulation may be wrongly identified. Scutellaris is a good species. Apicalis (from Northern Queensland) is a good species. Sericeus, its author states, resembles aiistralis, Boisd.; but no difference from that species is pointed out, and the description applies perfectly to the species named australis in the Macleay collection. I have not seen the type of sericeus, which is not in the Macleay Museum, but is doubtless in the " Australian '' Museum. Variicollis I think I know ; the type specimen is no doubt with that of sericeus, and I have not seen it, but I have an ex- ample from the neighbourhood where variicollis was taken, which agrees well with the description. It seems to be a good species. Vittatus is an extremely isolated species from tropical Queens- land. The remaining three species (occidentalis, Meyricki, and dispar) are of my own nomenclature. It will thus be seen that after all necessary weeding out eighteen species remain which may be regarded as at present forming the genus Phyllotocus. The following tabulation shows satisfactory structural characters for distinguishing most of the described species. There are however two (apicalis, Macl. and marginijjeniiis, Macl.) which I am unable to place in the tabula- tion owing to the vagueness of their descriptions. A. Elytra glabrous (ornearly so) except along their lateral margins. B. Elytra nitid, not velvety, with interstices similar inter se and not (or scarcely) convex. C. Maxillary palpi elongate, their apical joint narrow and cylindric or nearly so. D. Front tibiae in both sexes externally tridentate (including the apical process). E. Prothorax rectangular at base . . . Macleayi, Fisch. EE. Hind angles of prothorax strongly obtuse... ... ... ... bimaculatus, Er. DD. Front tibipe with only one tooth above the apical projection. E. Head testaceous ... ... ... occidentcdis, Blackb. EE. Head black ... ., ... Meyricki, Bl&ckh. CC. Maxillary palpi much shorter, their apical joint somewhat oval ... ... mcestus, Boisd. BB. Elytra more or less opaque, often velvety, with convex unequal interstices. C. Hind femora black or nearly so. D. Prothorax strongly lobed in the middle of base ... ... ... ... scutellaris, Macl. DD, Prothorax not (or scarcely) lobed in middle of base. E. Puncturation of prothorax faint and obscure (as usual in the genus) .. ustulatus, Blanch* 24 EE. Puncturation of prothorax unusually strong and well defined ... CC. Hind femora testaceous A A. Elytra clothed with erect hairs (at any rate along the base and suture). B. The hairs fringing the prothorax black or nearly so. C. Prothorax entirely black. D. Head very coarsely unevenly and by no means closely punctulate. E. Convexity of prothorax (viewed from side) even, — at any rate in the middle. F. Elytra entirely set with erect pilosity FF. Disc of elytra glabrous EE. Prothorax strongly declivous hind- ward all across base DD. Head closely evenly and somewhat finely punctulate ,. . CC. Prothorax red, or at any rate with its sides broadly red. D. Prothorax very strongly lobed hindward at middle of base ... DD. Prothorax not or but little lobed at base BB. The prothorax fringed laterally with close- set white pilosity variir.ollis, Macl. vittaiiis, Macl. ert/thropterus, Blanch. rufipennis, Boisd. Kingi, Macl. navicularis, Blanch. ruficollk, Macl. australis, Boisd. lispar, Blackb. It seems desirable to say a word regarding the sexual characters of Phyllotomis, which to some extent vary with the species. In all of them the male has one of the claws of its front tarsi more or less (in some species very much more than in others) dilated. There is also a tendency towards darker coloring in the males than in the females of some species, and in several species the elytra of the female are much more hairy than those of the male. This latter character is very noticeable in P. australis, Boisd.; but is extremely developed in P. Kingi, Macl., the female of which has its elytra densely set with velvety pile while in the male the elytra are nearly glabrous on the disc. Sir W. Macleay is certainly justified, I think, in regarding Lacordaire as in error when he finds sexual characters in the antennae of Phyllotocus. I do not observe any sexual differences in the armature of the front tibiae. PHYLLOTOCIDIUM (gen. nov. Sericidarum). Mentum sat elongatum sat angustum ; palpi labiales breves, articulo ultimo obconico ; palpi maxillares sat breves (fere ut Cheiragrse), articulo apicali elongato-ovali quam ceteri conjuncti vix breviori ; labrum breviter transversum (a Cheirrhamphicce parum dissimile) ; oculi modici ; antennae modicse, S-articulatae, clava (maris quam feminse magis elongata) 3 - articulata ; prothorax sequalis ; scutellum modicum ; elytra maris baud, feminae vix manifeste, striata ; pedes robusti minus elongati ; tibiae anticae extus (processu 25 apicali vix extus directo excepto) baud dentatse ; unguiculi modice elongati (ab articulo 5° tarsorum longitudine baud multo dissimiles), simplices, maris anterioribus incrassatis et appendicibus 2 elongatis membranaceis instructis ; coxse posticaB quam metasternum paullo breviores ; corpus supra sat glabrum, subtus pilosum. Type F. (Cheiragra), Macleayi, Blackb. Tbe tarsal cbaracter of tbis species (mentioned by me in ■describing it, P.L.S., N.S.W., 1891, p. 482) must, I am now con- vinced, be regarded as inconsistent with a place in the genus CJieiragra ; its facies moreover is quite sui generis^ the glabrous nitid upper surface being suggestive of certain Phyllotoci while its head is that of a Cheiragra ; tbe structure of the legs (and especially the claws) is quite different from that of any other species known to me, while the coppery (or purplish) gloss of the upper surface distinguisbes it among its allies. CHEIRRHAMPHICA (gen. nov. Sericidarufn). Mentum sat elongatuna sat angustum ; palpi labiales breves, articulo ultimo obconico ; palpi maxillares modici (quam Phyllotoci Macleayi, Fischer, multo breviores), articulo ultimo subcylindrico ad apicem subacuminato ; labrum breve transversum a clypeo sutura vix manifesta divisum ; oculi modici, fere ut Fhyllotoci ; antennae modicse, 8-articulat8e, clava brevi 3-articulata ; prothorax sequalis ; scutellum modicum ; elytra oblonga, parum manifesto striata ; pedes elongati fere ut Fhyllotoci, sed maris tibiis anticis compresso- dilatatis et tarsis anticis brevibus (harum articulis basalibus 4 brevissimis, articulo apicali quam tibia antica vix breviori, unguiculo permagno deformi) ; coxae posticae quam abdomen vix breviores ; corpus pubescens. It will be seen from the above diagnosis that this genus must be placed in Lacordaire's " Groupe " Fhyllotocides and that it differs from Fhyllotocus notably in the front piece of tbe clypeus being very sbort, strongly transverse, and not separated from tbe preceding piece by a sbarply defined suture, also by the very remarkable sexual characters in tbe front legs of the male, and the very different maxillary palpi. The hind coxse are very elongate, their hind edge being (on tbe lateral margin) scarcely farther from the apex of the abdomen than from the hind margin of tbe metasternum. €. pubescens, sp. nov. Sat ovalis ; pube pallida sat elongata ad- pressa vestita ; subnitida ; nigra, vix aenea, antennis palpis pedibusque brunneo-testaceis (nonnullorum exemplorum pro- thorace elytris abdomineque brunneo-testaceis, nonnullorum 26 femoribus posticis vel 4 posterioribus infuscatis) ; capite prothoraceque sparsim sat fortiter, elytris minus sparsim minus fortiter, pygidio leviter squamose, punctulatis ; pro- thorace transverse, antice leviter angustato minus emar- ginato, lateribus sat arcuatis, basi bisinuata, angulis posticis obtusis ; scutello modico ; elytris baud (vel vix manifeste) striatis; tibiis anticis extus bidentatis. Long., IJ — 2J 1. ; lat. 4— U 1. o o In the male the basal four joints of the front tarsi are incras- sated and very short, — together scarcely reaching to the apex of the apical process of the tibia. The fifth joint is excessively dilated and as long (without including the claws) as the preceding joints together. One claw is as long as the fifth joint has a very large lamina like appendage at its base and is attached to the apex of the fifth joint in such fashion that it is directed back- wards almost parallel with the tarsus. The other claw is normal. The apex of the basal part of the fifth joint is thickly clothed with long hairs. W. Australia ; taken by Mr. Lea at Swan River and Geraldton. C. inter stitialis, sp. nov. Mas. — Ovalis ; parum lata ; pube brevi erecta pallide ferruginea vestita ; sat opaca ; nigra, antennis palpis pedibus anterioribus 4 tarsisque posticis plus minusve rufescentibus ; capite crebrius subtilius, prothorace sparsim sat grosse, elytris quam prothorax magis crebre vix minus grosse, pygidio minus perspicue, punctulatis ; prothorace vix transverso, antice sat fortiter angustato, lateribus modice arcuatis, basi vix bisinuata, angulis pos- ticis obtusis ; scutello modico ; elytris costis obsoletis angustis circiter 4 instructis ; tibiis anticis extus haud (processu apicali excepto) dentatis ; tibiis posticis robustis. Long. 2il ; Lat. l^l. I see no reason to separate this species generically from the preceeding although as will be seen by comparing the descriptions the two are not much like each other superficially. The erect (not adpressed) hairs with which it is clothed, its clypeus more evenly rounded in front, its much less transverse prothorax its elytra with distinct traces of costse, its very stout hind tibiae, the much more numerous setse at the apex of each tarsal joint, &c., contribute to make this species extremely distinct from the pre- ceding. Its facies, indeed, is very much that of a Cheiragra, but I do not see how it can justifiably be placed among species with short appendiculate claws while (as is the case) its claws are altogether as characterized in the diagnosis of Cheirrhamphica. Perhaps eventually it may be regarded as the type of a new 27 genus. The male characters of the front tarsi are quite as in C. puhescens except in the basal lamina of the large claw being scarcely developed. N. Queensland ; sent by Mr. French. NEOPHYLLOTOCUS (gen. nov. Sericidarum). Type iV. [Macrothops) rostrata, Macl. I propose this name as a substitute for Macrotliops, Macl. nee Boisd., which is a nom. prseocc, having been used by Boisduval for a genus already named Phyllotocus by Fischer de Waldh. Sir W. Macleay's diagnosis is not very complete as it does not in- clude any reference to the claws, where the most obvious distinc- tive characters of the Fhyllotocides are to be found. In the present genus the claws are extremely short (about half the length of the 5th tarsal joint), and are all simple in the female. In the male one of the claws on each of the 4 anterior tarsi is bifid. Sir W. Macleay described a second species of his genus Macrotliops under the name j^f^^^'i'dipennis which he stated was founded on specimens that had lost their " palpi, tarsi &c." It is therefore, impossible to say whether that species is rightly as- sociated with the present insect. CHEIRAGRA. Sir W. Macleay formed this genus for a number of species which he described so briefly that it is impossible to identify any of them (as species) with certainty except by comparison, which has not been practicable for me. I have before me a considerable number of specimens evidently attributable to the genus. Sir W. Macleay in his diagnosis of the genus omitted to mention that the claws are appendiculate and furnished at their base with large membranous processes, which I take to be the most reliable generic character. In the male the front tarsi have one claw similar to those of the female while the other claw is enormously developed and turned back against the surface of the tarsus. With the exception of two examples (from a far Northern locality, unfortunately both females and therefore undesirable for description) I cannot satisfy myself that the specimens of this genus before me represent more than one species. They are from various localities in Victoria and N.S. Wales and difier to a remarkable extent in coloring, so that it is hard to find two quite alike. This species does not appear to be Phyllotoc^is pusiUus, Blanchv (which Sir William seems to regard as the type of Cheiragra) as its prothorax is not black in any variety that I have seen and certainly could not be described as *' haud punctatus.'^ 28 I suspect it is C. ruJicolUs, Macl., but unfortunately there is a discrepancy between the 12 words of Latin and the 33 of English of which the description consists, as the Latin makes the elytra testaceous and the English implies that they are black (at least in the male). However, the specimens before me include elytra entirely black, entirely testaceous, and black with various testace- ous blotches. There are no differences among Sir W. Macleay's descriptions of C. ruflcollis, pallida, lurida, and atra except in respect of color and slight distinctions in size. C. pygmoia is probably a distinct species which I have not seen, and aphodioides may be distinct, as Sir W. Macleay says that the front tibiae of the male are more slender than in its allies. EPHOLCIS. This genus bearing much superficial resemblance to Mcechidms has entirely the Sericid relation between clypeus and labrum. Mr. C. O. Waterhouse in founding it expressed the opinion that it is intermediate between Diphucephala and Mcechidius. Its coloring and the character of its sculpture as well as the presence of appen- dages at the base of the claws are certainly suggestive of the latter, though it is to be noted that the claw appendages are not really characteristic of Mcechidius, being absent in many species, and an analogous structure being found in an isolated species {Nosphisthis) described below. But the structure of the head is totally different from that of Mcechidius and if it were to be regarded as allied to that genus rather than Diphucephala it would upset the validity of Sericides and Sericoides as distinct sub-tribes. I have little doubt that it is a flower-frequenting genus. Mcechidius Albertisi and bilobiceps of Fairemaire are evidently referable to Epholcis. I suspect that the former is identical with E. divergens, Waterh., in which case its name must sink as a synonyn. I refer provisionally to this genus Mcechidius gracilis, Waterh. which its author says is " very unlike all the others in that genus." It appears to me impossible to consider it a Mcechidius or even closely allied thereto, inasmuch as its prosternal sutures are not open to receive its antennae and its mouth structure is of the Sericid type, the front of its labium being almost in contact with the apex of the clypeus without the intervention of a visible labrum. Its facies is undoubtedly highly suggestive of Mcechidius and very different from that of Epholcis, but never- the-less I can find no character to separate it from the latter genus which is not evidently merely specific in other genera, e.g. Diphucephala and Mcechidius. The following is a new species allied to E. (Mcechidius) gracilis. 29 E. longior, sp. nov. Sat elongata ; sat opaca ; picea, antennis palpis pedibus et corpore subtus rufescentibus ; setulis brevibus gracilibus adpressis, et pilis erectis elongatis sparsis, testaceis vestita ; capite antice truncato elevato-reflexo, lateribus sinuatis ; prothorace sat transverse, antice fortiter angustato crebre rugulose sat grosse punctulato, lateribus fortiter rotundatis, angulis anticis sub-acutis minus promi- nulis posticis rotundato-obtusis, basi rotundata; elytris obscure seriatim punctulatis, lineis 3 obscurioribus vix ele- vatis instructis ; tibiis anticis extus 3-dentatis (dentibus inferioribus 2 approximatis, a 3° sat remotis) ; tarsorum posticorum articulo basali quam 2''* multo longiori ; ungui- culis singulis ad basin appendiculis singulis armatis. Long. 311. ; Lat. Ifl. Larger and more elongate than U. gracilis, Waterh., with the prothorax much mora coarsely punctulate ; the clypeus consider- ably more reflexed in front (causing the labium to appear less nearly in contact with the edge of the clypeus when the head is looked at from beneath), and with its sides more sinuate. N. Queensland ; sent by Mr. Cowley. SERicoiDES (Sub-tribe). This sub-tribe is by far the most numerously represented among the Australian Melolonthini, and moreover presents extra- ordinary difficulties in classification, owing to the presence of the most remarkable structural differences between insects that apart from those differences are not even very notably distinct from each other as species. These differences are found in the number of joints in the antennae, the structure of the antennal club, the form of the labrum and the hind coxae, and even, to some extent, the structure of the claws. To regard such differences as generic (which one would do unhesitatingly in the case of almost any other Coleoptera) would require an enormous multiplication of the genera known at present and would split up numerous genera that are among the most natural aggregates in the whole coleo- pterous series. For example, to regard those differences as generic would involve the formation of at least nine new genera out of Heteronyx, than which in a natural arrangement a more homo- geneous aggregate could hardly be found, and changes almost as sweeping would be required in nearly all the other large genera. However at present the sub-tribe is in a state of extreme con- fusion. Numerous genera have been formed since the publication of Lacordaire's work, but their diagnoses are scattered over a wide field of literature and so far as I know have not been systematically classified. The result of this is that anyone hav- ing new species to describe is faced with the greatest difficulty in 30 ascertaining the genus to which (at least some of them, in all probability) should be referred. I propose therefore, before pro- ceeding to describe various new species before me, to review the Sericoid genera and endeavour to set forth their characters in a tabulated form. I shall not, however, attempt the ambitious task of placing the genera in anything like a permanently satis- factory condition, as in my opinion that would be at present impossible, and moreover would require very extensive alterations that should be made by someone who has a wider knowledge than I possess of the Sericoides of other parts of the world. I may say, in passing, that I believe the character which should have the greatest weight in the classification of the Sericoid species into genera to be the nature of the sexual distinctions. There are far too many species of which the sexual characters are at least uncertain to allow of this system being carried out to-day, but I am convinced that in it will be found the key to the essential distinctions among the Sericoid genera. What I shall attempt will be simply to determine which of the existing generic names can be retained as founded on characters that are (at any rate among other characters) valid, and show the relation of them to each other, — making as few additions as possible, and not attempting to split them up even in cases where I have little doubt that a fuller knowledge of the sexes will eventually require that they be split up. It is necessary however to add a few new genera. It will be observed that in the following classification of genera considerable weight is conceded to characters seeming very slight in comparison of others which are treated as of little value though apparently more important ; as where the nature of the elytral striation is made generic and the number of antennal joints specific. On this I have to remark that in what I believe will be the really scientific classification characters founded on the nature of the sexual distinctions will take the place of the apparently unimportant characters now employed and also that, however superficial some of these make-shift characters may appear, long and careful observation of a very extensive series of species from many collections has convinced me that they accompany real generic difference and that there is no fear of future observations requiring the genera thus slightly characterized to be suppressed, but that the effect of future observations will be only to show the necessity of further sub-division of the genera now distin- guished by apparently slight characters. The following may be noted in respect of the result of my observations regarding the Australian >^eHcoio?es. 1. The nature of the armature of the claws where the claws are not simple cannot be relied upon as generic, but the difference between claws 31 that are either bifid or appendiculate and those that are simple (disregarding membranous basal appendages) is strictly generic. 2. The number of antennal joints and the number of joints forming the antennal club are not generis (although the difference between the number of joints in the club where it is sexual probably is generic). 3. Characters founded upon the granula- tion of the eyes are strictly generic. 4. The difference between simple and geminate striation of the elytra is nearly always combined with reliable generic differences. 5. Marked differences in the form of the clypeus (at least in many cases) are much more generic than differences in the form of the labrum. 6. Differences in the hind tibiae are generic. From these general observations I now pass to some remarks on the generic names that at present stand attributable to the Australian Sericoides. These are, I believe, 34 in number {excluding " Melolontha^^ which seems to have been applied loosely by some of the earlier authors to species of this subtribe). Of these Cotidia and Colohostoma are mere names given (without mention of characters) by Boisduval to species that cannot be identified. It is not unlikely that Colohostoma was founded on the insect since named Platydesimis sulcipennis by Sir W. Macleay, but the evidence is not strong enough to upset the later name. I have already discussed this point in Proc. Linn. Soc, N.S.W., 1890, p. 517 (note). IIaplonycha = Col2)ochila. Silopa and Hostilina = Heteronyx. Philochlcenia and Omaloplia = Caulobius. Of the names sunk as synonyms in the above statement I regard it as possible that two {Haplo7iycha and PhilochkeniaJ may have to be restored as repre- senting valid genera when the sexual characters of Colpochila and Caulobius are known in a long range of species, but I do not find any other generic character that seems sufficient to confirm them. After the above eliminations there remain 28 genera, to the validity of which I am not able to bring any definite objection, but of them there are four that I have not been able to identify among the large collections of Melolonthini that I have examined. On each of these a few remarks seem called for. 1. Automolus. This genus was formed by Burmeister for a small Tasmanian species, to which Erichson seems to have attached the MS. name Liparetrus angustulus. Burmeister says that its antennae are nine-jointed. Assuming the correctness of that statement I should say that the genus is a good one and that I have not seen it. If it could be that Burmeister had counted the joints incorrectly and that they are really eight (it is easy to go wrong about the minute antennal joints of a small Lip)aretrus) I should suspect that the species is one of those which Sir W. 32 Macleay calls "Section II" of Liparetrus, and in that case I am not at all sure that it would not be justifiable to retain the name Automolus and regard Macleay's " Section II " as forming a dis- tinct genus. But in this uncertainty I must pass the genus by with the remark that it is certainly very closely allied to Liparetrus. 2. Microthopus. This is another genus (from W. Australia) which Burmeister characterises as closely allied to Liparetrus. If its author is right in saying that it is founded on a male example it is unknown to me. If he was mistaken about its sex I should regard it as possibly identical with my genus Macleay ia (in which case my name would lapse). Here again I must pass the genus by as uncertain. 3. Homo! otr opus. This genus was founded by Sir W. Macleay (Tr. Ent. Soc, N.S.W., II., p. 193) on an insect that I am unable to identify. Apart from the antennse I find no character in the diagnosis that seems really generic, and the antennal characters alone do not appear to me conclusive. Nevertheless, from the description of the species, I take it that the genus is likely to be a good one, but there is no character mentioned by the author that enables me to jjlace it in a tabulation. Moreover as Sir W. Macleay asserts that the position of Homolotrojms is near Xylonychus (which Lacordaire places among the true Melolonthides, where I think it is certainly more at home than in the Sericoides) it is quite possibly not a member of the sericoid group. 4. Odontonyx. Another of Sir W. Macleay's genera concern- ing which I cannot speak positively. The diagnosis would fit Eurychelus but in the description of the species the author states that there " seems to be " a kind of membranous appendage beneath the last joint of the tarsi, and this remark I am afraid compels me to pass the genus by, with the observation that it is probably near Eurychelus. To the above I have to add nine new genera bringing up the total number to 33. A. Prosternal sutures normal. B. The claws simple (disregarding membranous appendages). C. Winged species. D. Femora glabrous and very slender and elon- gate ... ... ... .. ... Telura. DD. Femora shorter and stouter and more or less pilose. E. Elytra very short exposing much of the propygidium (all small species). F. Clypeus margined in front. G. Antennal club 3- jointed in both sexes ... Liparetrun. GG. Antennal club 5-jointed in the male ... Machayia. FF. Clypeus not margined in front ... ... Comophorus, EE. Elytra of normal length (except in a very few large species). 33 F. Eyes large (projecting laterally at least as far as clypeus), nitid, and scarcely (or very finely) granulate. G. Front tibii« not as in GG. H. Antennal club not setose on the faces of the joints in either sex. I. Tarsal joints not bearing tufts of long soft hairs. J. Labrum distinct (at least by a suture) from vertical front face of clypeus. K. Free outline of clypeus an even curve (or nearly so) L. Base of prothorax margined. M. Elytra geminate-striate. N. Hind tibias short, their inner outline not nearly straight. O. Apical joint of labial palpi conic, not much longer than penultimate ... 00. Apical joint of labial palpi longer and more cylindric. P. Labrum (riewed from above) trun- cate or emarginate in front. Q. Canthus cutting into front of eye well defined... QQ. Front of eye entire (or all but entire) PP. Labrum strongly projecting, re- flexed and angular at apex NN. Hind tibiae more elongate, their inner margin straight. O. Antennal club dififering sexually (always longer than apical joint of maxillary palpi) 00. Antennal club in both sexes not or scarcely longer than apical joint of maxillary palpi MM. Elytra not geminate-striate. N. A membranous appendage at the base of each claw NN. No membranous appendage at base of claws. O. Eyes widely separated. P.' Spurs of hind tibife normal. Q. Apical joint of labial palpi elongate and cylindric... QQ. Apical jojnt of labial palpi short and more or less conic PP. Hind tibise without spurs distinct from the fringing cilia 00. Eyes very large, subapproximate above and beneath the head LL. Base of prothorax not margined. M. Transverse carina of hind tibi« want- ing (as in Scitala). N. Sterna clothed with long pilosity ... NN. Sterna almost glabrous MM. Transverse carina of hind tibise well defined (as in Coljjochila) Aneucomides. Golpochila, Petinopus. Glossocheilijer. Scitala. Anodontonyx. Nosphisthis. Frenchdla. Platydesmus. Anacanthopus. Engyops. Colpochilodes. Sericesthis. Ntso. 34 K.K. Front of clypeus with sharp lateral angles, its sides straight... ... Sciton K.K.K. Front of clypeus emarginate ... Byrrhomorpha. J.J. Labrum entirely confused with vertical front face of clypeus ... ... Dysphanocheila. I.I. Tarsal joints each with an isolated tuft of long soft hairs beneath ... ... Ocnodus H.H. The faces of the joints of the antennal club clothed with erect setae ... ... Diphyllocera. G G. Front tibiae excessively dilated and sinuous (not dentate) externally ... ... Pachygastra. F.F. Eyes smaller, and more distinctly granulate ; surpassed by clypeus. G. Front tibiae not having a tooth close to the base externally ... ... ... ... Haplopsis. G.G. Front tibiae with a minute tooth close to the base externally ... ... ... Caulohms. C.C. Apterous species ... ... ... ... Callabonica. B.B. Claws bifid or appendiculate. C. Apterous species ... ... ... ... Pseudoheteronyx. C.C. Winged species. D. Antennae with more than 7 joints. E. Tarsi of male normal. F. Form strongly depressed ... ... ... Eurychdus. F.F. Form notably more convex ... ... Heteronyx. E.E. Anterior four tarsi of male strongly dilated... Neoheteronyx. D.D. Antennae with only 7 joints ... .. Nepytis. A. A. Prosternal sutures open to receive the antennas . . , Mcechidius. ANEUCOMIDES (gen. nov. SericoidarumJ. Mentum antice emarginatum ; palpi labiales breves, articulo ultimo breviter conico quam praecedens parum longiori ; palpi maxil lares sat elongati, articulo ultimo quam prgecedens sat longiori ; labrum modice exstans, antice late rotundatum (superne visum) ; oculi sat magni nitidi vix manifeste granu- lati, antice a cantho profunde incisi ; antennae (speciei typicae) 9-articulat8e, clava 4-articulata (hac maris quam articuli praecedentes conjuncti parum breviori, feminge baud observatse); prothorax transversus ; elytra geminato-striata; tibise anticse extus S-dentatse, posticis perbrevibus ad apicem valde dilatatis ; unguiculi simplices ; sterna femoraque pilosa. The species for which I propose this new generic name is an extremely puzzling one. Its facies is strongly suggestive of a small Dynastid of the Oryctomorphid group, but its abdominal stigmata are decidedly those of a Melolonthid, its antennal struc- ture moreover being quite inconsistent with the idea of a Dynastid. It is a short robust insect with hind femora and tibiae very short and incrassate, and bears no resemblance in facies to any other Melolonthid known to me. Nevertheless, I have failed to discover any structural character that I can rely upon to dis- tinguish it from Colpochila except the conic form and unusual brevity of the apical joint of the labial palpi and the somewhat peculiar labrum (slightly approaching that of Glossocheilifer ), which viewed from above appears as a lamina projecting to a moderate degree from the lower part of the vertical front face of the clypeus, and having its free outline broadly rounded. In the unique male before me the abdomen is remarkably short but this may possibly be the result of distortion merely, and I also observe that the bristles forming the apical fringe of the hind tibiae are unusually short and thick. A. color atus, sp. no v. Brevis, sat latus ; sat nitidus ; supra sat glaber sed prothorace pilis timbriato, subtus in sternis femoribusque pilosus ; rufus, elytris nigro-piceis ; clypeo subtil ius crebrius, capite postice magis fortiter, prothorace ut clypeus sed minus crebre, elytris crebrius fortiter, pygidio subtiliter sparsim, punctulatis ; clypeo antice rotundato sat fortiter reflexo; prothorace postice marginato, fortiter transverso, antice fortiter angustato, angulis anticis acutis minus prominulis posticis (superne visis) fere rectis, basi utrinque vix sinuata ; elytris parum distincte striatis (striis geminatis), interstitiis planis; tarsorum posticorum articulo basali quam 2^*^ vix breviori. Long., 5 1.; lat., 2^ 1. This small species is notable for its coloring, the whole insect laeing of a somewhat full red color except the elytra which are black (or nearly so), with a little tendency to rufescence about the shoulders. S.W. Australia; Eyre's Sand Patch. COLPOCHILA. C. Roei, Burm., is certainly, I think, identical with C. crassiventris, Blanch. The latter is the older name. PETINOPUS (gen. nov. Sericoidarum). Mentum antice prof unde triangulariter emarginatum ; palpi labiales modici, articulo ultimo gracili cylindrico ; palpi maxillares sat elongati, articulo ultimo quam prsecedens multo longiori ; labrum a clypei parte antica verticali bene discretum sed vix prominulum (fere ut Scitalce) ; oculi magni nitidi vix manifeste granulati, antice fere integri ; antennae (speciei typicae) 9-articulatae, clava 3-articulata quam pal- porum maxillarium articulus ultimus parum longiori (maris quam feminae haud longiori) ; prothorax transversus ; elytra geminato-striata ; tibiae anticae extus 3-dentatae, posticis modicis latis intus sat fortiter arcuatis ; unguiculi simplices ; sterna parce pilosa ; tarsi posteriores 4 maris subtus longe dense pilosi. 36 The species for which I propose this new generic name has the appearance of a Colpochila, — though very much smaller than any Colpochila known to me, — but is at once distinguishable from the species of allied genera by the sides of its clypeus not cutting into the eye. I find however a faintly marked smooth but scarcely elevated line on the eye occupying the position that in allied genera is occupied by the canthus-like prolongation of the clypeus. Another notable character consists in the long closely placed pilosity on the underside of the hind and intermediate tarsi in the male which gives those organs an appearance from a certain point of view suggestive of a feather. In the female the hind tarsi are glabrous except at the apex of each joint. The mentum, moreover, is remarkable on account of the very deep triangular excision (reaching nearly half-way to the base) of its apical margin. P. (sgrotus, sp. nov. Sat brevis ; sat latus ; sat nitidus ; supra fere glaber ; brunneo-testaceus ; clypeo minus crebre, capite postice crebre subaspere, prothorace vix crebre minus for- titer, scutello fere ut prothorax, elytris fortius subcrebre, pygidio fere ut prothorax, punctulatis ; clypeo antice rotun- dato reflexo ; prothorace quam longiori duplo latiori, antice minus angustato, angulis anticis sat acutis parum productis posticis rotundato-obtusis ; scutello magno triangulari ; ely- tris leviter geminato-striatis, interstitiis nonnullis angustis subconvexis ; tarsorum posticorum articulis 1 — 4 inter se longitudine subsequalibus. Long., 4^ 1. ; lat., 2i 1. N. Territory of S. Australia ; in my collection, also in S.A. Museum. GLOSSOCHEILIFER (gen. nov. Sericoidarum). Mentum antice latum fortiter emarginatum ; palpi fere ut Diphyllocerce (labialibus modicis articulo ultimo sat elon- gato apicem versus angustato, maxillaribus sat elongatis articulo ultimo quam prsecedens sat longiori) ; labrum for- titer productum, ad apicem angustatum et reflexum ; oculi sat magni, sat nitidi, fere Iseves, antice a cantho profunde incisi ; antennae (speciei typicse) 9-articulat8e, clava 3-articulata hac maris articulis antennarum 2-6 conjunctis sequilonga, feminse sat breviori ; prothorax transversus ; elytra geminato-striata; tibiae anticse extus S-dentatse, posticis minus elongatis (parte apicali sat fortiter dilatata) ; unguiculi simplices ; sterna pilis elongatis dense vestita; tarsis maris quam feminse multo longioribus robustioribus. This genus differs from all its allies in the remarkable form of its labrum, which is very large and projects forward from the lower extremity of the front (subvertical) face of the clypeus, 37 bending obliquely upward, and viewed from above looks like a protruding tongue. G. labialis, sp, nov. Elongato-ovatus ; nitidus ; supra fere glaber, subtus in sternis femoribusque pilosus ; piceo-niger, antennis palpisque rufis, pedibus (prjesertim coxis anticis) plus minusve rufescentibus ; clypeo minus crebre, capita postice confertim (hoc exemplorum visorum in medio fovea leviter impresso), prothorace sparsim (ad latera magis crebre), elytris sat sparsim, parum fortiter punctulatis ; pygidio in medio sublaevi, ad latera sparsius subtiliter punctulato ; clypeo antice rotundato sat reHexo ; prothorace postice marginato, sat transverso, lateribus sat fortiter arcuatis, angulis anticis acutis minus productis posticis rotundato-obtusis, basi utrinque sinuata ; elytris in disco distincte striatis (sed striis minus perspicue geminatis), latera versus minus distincte striatis (sed striis perspicue geminatis) ; tarsorum posticorum articulo basali quam 2°^ sat breviori. Long. 6J — 71. ; lat. 341. W. Australia ; taken by Mr. Lea at Mt. Barker. SCITALA. In Proc. Linn. Soc, N.S.W., 1890, pp. 539-545, T wrote at some length on the claims of this name to retention, — it having been substituted by Burmeister and Lacordaire for Sericesthis. I need not now repeat the arguments I then employed, but merely observe that I contended for the claims of Sericesthis to be re- tained in preference to Scitala. In doing so I followed the dis- tinguished authors quoted above in the assumption that the type of Sericesthis is congeneric with the type of Scitala. Lately however I have seen reason to consider that assumption unwar- ranted. I take it that the type of Sericesthis is the species for which Boisduval first used the name, — viz. S. geminata, — and that is undoubtedly a later name for Melolontha pruinosa, Dalm. Now the type of Erichson's genus Scitala is S. sericans, Er., a species which I am not sure that I know, but I have before me numerous species undoubtedly congeneric with it (judging by the generic diagnosis), and there appear to me sufficient reasons for the conclusion that they are not congeneric with Sericesthis geminata, Boisd. Erichson states that in Scitala the apical joint of the labial palpi is obconic and incrassate (as it is in the numerous species referred to above) and he so figures it. But in S. geminata, Boisd., it is elongate, cylindric, and very slender. The shape of that joint is a very important character which that eminent specialist Dr. Sharp relies upon as a leading distinction of his genus Anodontonyx. I find, moreover, that all the species known to me congeneric with S. sericans have the base of the 38 prothorax margined while in Sericesthis geminata, Boisd., the prothorax has no basal margin. On these grounds I have con- cluded that Scitala and Sericesthis are both valid genera, and I know of no other species than geminata, Boisd. (=pruinosa, Dalm.) that can be attributed to the latter. Dr. Sharp's genus Anodontonyx has the labial palpi of Scitala as figured and described by Erickson [a fact which Dr. Sharp seems to have overlooked, — ^probably taking S. pruinosa on Lacordaire's authority as the species of (so-called) Scitala with which he compared his Anodontonyx, — though he probably has seen also some true Scitala for he says that the apical joint of the labial palpi in Scitala is " generally " slender]. Anodontonyx however is perfectly distinct from both Sericesthis and Scitala by another character (mentioned by Dr. Sharp) viz. that the antennal club is short. This is more fully expressed by saying that in Anodontonyx the antennal club is alike in the sexes while in Scitala it is much longer in the male than in the female and in both sexes is considerably longer than that of Anodontonyx. Boisduval and Erichson appear to have included species of other genera in their Sericesthis and Scitala respectively (a matter with which I hope to deal in the next part of this series of papers) but that does not appear to touch the validity of the genera inasmuch as their characters should rest in the one case on the characters of the species to which the name was first applied (without a diagnosis) and in the other case on the diagnosis. The seven species described by me in my paper referred to above under the name Sericesthis (on the assumption that Sericesthis and Scitala are identical) I must now transfer to Scitala (regarding that genus as distinct from Sericesthis). NosPHiSTHis (gen. nov. Sericoidarum). Mentum antice vix perspicue emarginatum ; palpi labiales sat breves, articulo ultimo subconico ; palpi maxillares parum elongati, articulo ultimo quam prsecedens vix longiori ; labrum sat prominulum, antice (superne visum) emarginato- truncatum ; oculi sat magni nitidi vix manifeste granulati, antice a cantho profunde incisi ; antennae (speciei typicse) 9-articulat8e, clava 3-articulata, quam palporum maxillarium articulus ultimus haud longiori ; prothorax transversus ; elytra striata (haud geminatim) ; tibiae anticse extus 3- dentatse, posticis sat brevibus ad apicem dilatatis intus arcuatis ; unguiculi parvi simplices, sed ad basin lamella membranacea instructi ; sterna pilis longis minus dense vestita. 39 • This genus has the f acies of Frenchella^ from which it is readily distinguished by the membranous lamella at the base of each claw, as well as by the form of the apical joint of the labial palpi and of the antennal club. I suspect the type is a female, but I have no doubt the male scarcely differs in external structure ; I do not recollect an instance of an Australian Melolonthid having an extremely abbreviated antennal club in the female and a longer one in the male. I judge the type to be a female only because its tarsi are short and slender. The sexual distinctions in the genera to which this is related are very slight, usually almost confined to the length of the tarsi where the antennal club is not in both sexes notably longer than it is in the insect before me. N. parvicornis, sp. nov. Fem. 1 Sat nitida ; rufo-ferruginea J pilis elongatis fimbriata ; corpore subtus pygidioque pilosa ; capite confertim rugulose punctulato, clypeo late truncato- rotundato, antice fortiter reflexo ; antennis 9-articulatiSy clava perbrevi quadrata 3-articulata ; prothorace fortiter transverso, antice fortiter angustato, sparsius (quam caput multo minus crebre) punctulato, lateribus sat sequaliter arcuatis, angulis anticis vix acutis posticis obtusis, basi minus fortiter bisinuata ; scutello punctulato ; elytris sat fortiter sat sequaliter striatis, interstitiis fortius vix crebre punctulatis ; pygidio subopaco, creberrime subtilissime ruguloso-punctulato ; tarsis brevibus ; articulo apicali inter unguiculorum baseos lamina instructo ; unguiculis brevibus fortiter curvatis. Long., 6| L; lat. 3^ 1. N.S. Wales ; taken by Mr. Lea at Forest Reefs. FRENCHELLA. In addition to the species of Blanchard and Burmeister already mentioned by me (Pr. Linn Soc, N.S.W., 1892, p. 104) as probably needing to be transferred from Haplonycha to Frenchella, I find that S. iridescens, Blanch., is almost certainly a Frenchella ; I have examples before me which seem to be clearly that species The following are new ones. F. hispida, sp. nov. Sat nitida ; ferruginea, prothorace prope marginem lateralem medium macula obscura notato ; supra pilis elongatis fimbriata et in capite elytris pygidioque pilis longis erectis sparsim vestita ; subtus sat pilosa ; capite crebre fortiter rugulose punctulato, clypeo antice rotundato modice (minus quam F. lubrici, Black.) reflexo ; antennis 8-articulatis, clava sat elongata 3-articulata ; prothorace sat fortiter transverso, antice fortiter angustato, quam caput multo minus crebre punctulato, lateribus superne visis a. • 40 basi ad medium fere parallelis hinc antrorsum subsinuatim convergentibus (a latere visis, paullo pone medium rotund ato dilatatis), angulis anticis acutis posticis acutis nonnihil dentiformibus, basi bisinuata ; scutello punctulato ; elytris sat eequaliter striatis, interstitiis subconvexis sat fortiter punctulatis ; pygidio fere ut elytra punctulata et pilosa. Maris antennarum clava quam articuli ceteri conjuncti baud breviori ; feminse paullo breviori. Long. 6 — 6 J 1., ; lat. 3 -341- For remarks on this species see the following {F. approximans). Victoria and N.S. Wales. F. approximans, sp. nov. Sat nitida ; fusca, antennis palpisque dilutioribus, nonnullorum exemplorum elytris et corpore subtus plus minusve rufescentibus ; ut F. hispida pilosa ; capite antennisque ut F. hispidce ; prothorace sat fortiter transverso, antice fortiter angustato (nonnullorum exem- plorum obsolete canaliculato), quam caput vix minus crebre punctulato, lateribus superne visis fere ut F. hispidce sed a latere visis multo minus fortiter (et vix pone medium) rotundato-dilatatis ; cetera ut F. hispidce. Long. 6 — 7 1. ; lat. 2|— 4 1. This species is readily distinguishable from nearly all the other described Australian Sericoid Lamellicornes with simple claws by the long slender erect hairs that are thinly placed in longitudinal rows on its elytra. It is, however, extremely close to F. hispida from which it diflPers by its darker color, the considerably closer puncturation of its prothorax and the different lateral outline of its prothorax. If this be looked at from the side it is seen in F. hispida to form a strong curve the extreme convexity (that is, the point where the prothorax is at its greatest width) of which is markedly behind the middle, whereas in the present species it is only very feebly curved outward, and the extreme convexity of the curve is scarcely behind the middle of the length of the lateral margin. Owing to the declivity of the sides of the prothorax this difference is scarcely noticeable when the prothorax is looked at from above. N.S.W. ; Sydney and northern districts. F. hirticollis, sp. nov. Sat nitida ; fusca, plus minusve rufescens ; fere ut F. hispida pilosa sed pilis erectis in prothorace ut in elytris vestita ; capite ut F. hispidce ; antennis 9-articulatis, clava sat elongata 3-articulata ; prothorace sat fortiter trans- verso, antice angustato, dupliciter punctulato (puncturis majoribus solis setiferis), lateribus superne visis modice arcuatis (latitudine majori pone medium posita) basin versus sinuatis (a latere visis fere ut F, hispida sed etiam magis fortiter rotundato-dilatatis) ; cetera ut F. hispidce. 41 Maris antennarum clava quam articuli ceteri conjunct! baud breviori ; feminse paullo breviori. Long., 7— 7^ 1. ; lat., Allied to the preceding two, but'eaiily distinguishable by the following characters : — The antenn?e nine-jointed, the prothorax (as well as the elytra) clothed with long erect pilosity, the pro- thoracic puncturation consisting of two kinds of punctures inter- mingled (one kind manifestly smaller than the punctures on the prothorax of hispida and non-setiferous, the other kind much larger and setiferous), the sides of the prothorax very manifestly sinuate behind the middle (viewed from above) and evidently more abruptly — indeed almost sub-angularly — dilated behind the middle, and more abruptly declivous (viewed from the side). N.S.W. ; all the specimens I have seen are, I believe, from the Sydney district. F. aspericollis, sp. nov. Mas. Sat nitida ; f usco-rufescens ; pilis elongatis fimbriata, capite pygidioque pilis erectisvestitis, corpore subtus piloso ; capite antennisque ut F. hispidce ; prothorace fere ut F. hispidce sed creberrime aspere punctu- lato ; elytris magis subtiliter punctulato ; pygidio (exempli typici) longitudinaliter fortiter carinato; cetera ut F. Fem. latet. Long., 5J 1. ; lat., 3 1. Near F. hispida but with elytra devoid of erect setae (I do not think this is due to abrasion). Very distinct also by the extremely close asperate puncturation of the prothorax and the very evidently liner puncturation of the elytral interstices, as well as by the strongly carinate pygidium, — though I do not find the carination of the pygidium a reliably constant character in all the Australian Lamellico7'nes. N.S. Wales ; Armidale ; given to me, I believe, by the late Mr. Ollifi". F. sparsicei^s, sp. nov. Mas. Sat nitida ; rufescens ; pilis elon- gatis limbriata, corpore subtus piloso ; capite postice minus fortiter minus crebre baud rugulose (parte media fere laevi), clypeo (hoc minus brevi antice rotundato) magis crebre magis aequaliter, punctulatis; antennis 9-articulatis, clava quam articuli ceteri conjuncti sat longiori ; prothorace sat fortiter transverse, antice fortiter angustato, sparsius (quam F. hispidcB sat minus crebre) punctulato, cetera ut F. Jtispidcd ', scutello sat Isevi ; elytris fere ut F. hispidce sed inters titiis multo minus grosse punctulatis. Fem. latet. Long., 6 1. ; lat. 3 J 1. I have seen two males of this species — both in inferior condi- tion and both taken by Mr. Lea near Sydney. The species is at 42 once distinguishable from all the , preceding by its much more sparsely and smoothly punctured head. In both the examples before me there are two large faintly marked impressions between the eyes, but this is probably not a constant character. F. sparsiceps is also distinguishable from all the preceding except hirticollis by its nine-jointed antennae, and from that species by its considerably longer antennal club and the absence of erect pilosity on the upper surface. KS. Wales. ANACANTHOPUS (gen. nov. Sericoidarum). Mentum subangustum ; palpi labiales sat breves, articulo ultimo minus elongato subovali ; palpi maxillares elongati, articulo ultimo quam praecedens duplo longiori ; labrum parvum sed distinctum, parum exstans, antice (superne visum) emar- ginatum ; oculi modici sat nitidi, subtiliter granulati, antice a cantho incisi ; antennae (speciei typicae) 9-articulatse, clava 3-articulata [hac maris (?) quam articuli 2-6 conjuncti vix longiori] ; prothorax trans versus ; elytra striata (haud geminatim) ; coxae posticae quam metasternum parum breviores ; tibiae anticae extus bidentatae, posticis brevibus ad apicem valde dilatatis spinoso-ciliatis (sed haud calcaribus a ciliis distinctis armatis) certo adspectu bilobis ; unguiculi simplices ; sterna breviter sparsim pilosa. A very remarkable genus which I refer with much hesitation to the Sericoides, The species described below has the facies of a Dynastid, and I have not a specimen which I can aftbrd to damage to the extent that would be necessary to examine its abdominal stigmata, but its nine- join ted antennae justify me I think in excluding it from the Dynastides. Assuming it to be a Melolonthid there is nowhere to place it but in the Sericoides from which I can find no structural character to separate it. But wherever it be placed the remarkable structure of its hind tibiae should make it easy to recognise. These are extremely dilated at the apex where they bear a continuous fringe of strong stout spines but nothing that can be distinguished from the rest of these spines as being " apical spurs." It is to be noted that its eyes are smaller and more distinctly granulated than in most of the genera allied to Colpochila and Sericesthis, and thus ap- proximate to the Caulobius type, but as they project laterally as far as the clypeus I think the genus should be grouped with the former two rather than the last-named. The evident resemblance on facies to the next genus (Engyops) which is certainly a Sericoid tends to confirm this in the place I have given it. I am uncertain of the sex of the specimen before me but I do not think that important since (from the analogy of allied genera) it is 43 unlikely that if it be a female the male differs materially except in probably having a longer antennal club. I have not been able to make a proper examination of the front margin of the mentum (which is rugulose and clothed with extremely long setae, and therefore difficult to study without dissection). A. i^iermis, sp. nov. Sat late ovalis ; minus convexus ; sat nitidus ; supra sat glaber ; supra piceo-niger, corpore subtus antennis palpis pedibusque rufescentibus ; capite cum clypeo crebre grosse, prothorace sparsim minus fortiter, pygidio sat grosse, punctulatis ; prothorace leviter transverso, antice fortiter angustato, lateribus fortiter rotundatis, basi utrinque subsinuata, angulis anticis acutis vix prominulis posticis rotundato-obtusis ; elytris substriatis, striis sat fortiter punctulatis, interstitiis subtilius seriatim punctulatis sat planis ; tarsorum posticorum gracilium articulo basali quam 2^^ sublongiori. Long., Sh 1. ; lat., 14 1. Tropical Queensland. ENGYOPS (gen. nov. Sericoidanmi). Mentum sat angustum ; palpi labiales sat breves, articulo ultimo minus elongato, subdilatato, ad apicem acuminato ; palpi maxillares elongati, articulo ultimo quam prsecedens duplo longiori ; labrum modicum, bene exstans, antice (superne visum) emarginato-truncatum ; oculi permagni inter se sub- approximati, sat nitidi, subtiliter granulati, antice a cantho incisi ; antennae (speciei typicse) 9-articulatfe, clava 3-articulata (hac maris quam articuli 2-6 conjuncti paullo longiori) ; pro- thorax transversus ; elytra striata (haud geminatim) ; coxse posticse minus elongate; tibiae anticse extus 3-den tat ae, posticis sat brevibus ad apicem modice dilatatis ; unguiculi simplices ; sterna sparsim pilosa. The species for which I propose the above generic name must certainly I think stand near the preceding one (Anacanthopus inermis) on account of the close resemblance between them in respect of the oral organs (the narrow rough mentum clothed with very long sparse setae, the very long apical joint of the maxillary palpi, sat remotis) ; tarsorum posticorum articulo basali quam 2°* paullo longiori; unguiculis singulis ad basin appendiculis singulis gracilibus armatis. Long., 5 1.; lat., 2 J 1. (vix). A very distinct species with the prothorax very like that of hopeanus, Westw., but more narrowed in front, and having the basal angles dentiform ; and differing from hopeanus inter alia by the presence of quill-like appendages at the base of the claws ; also like emarginatus, Waterh., but differing from it infer alia by there being no angle before the posterior emargination of the sides of the prothorax. Victoria ; in the S. Australian Museum. M. antennalis, sp. nov. Minus elongatus ; sat opacus ; castaneo- piceus, antennis testaceis clava elongata 5-articulata ; setulis sat gracilibus sat elongatis adpressis minus crebre vestitus ; clypeo antice late subtruncato ad latera recto, angulis anticis 63 acute [rectis ; prothorace fortiter transverse, antice haud angustato, leviter minus crebre punctulato, in disco bifoveo- lato, lateribus leviter sinuato-arcuatis subtilissime crenulatis, angulis anticis obtusis minus prominulis posticis subquadratim ^marginatis, angulo ante emarginationem fere recto ; elytris sat crebre punctulato-substriatis, interstitiis angustis inter se sequalibus (sed costa sat fortis postice longe abbreviata a callo humerali, et altera sublateralis antice breviter abbre- viata a callo subapicali, procedunt) ; tibiis anticis extus 3-dentatis (dentibus iiiferioribus 2 approximatis a 3° sat remotis) ; tarsorum posticorum articulo basali quam sequentes 2 conjuncti haud breviori ; unguiculis singulis ad basin appendiculis singulis gracilibus armatis. Long., 4 1. ; lat., 2 1. The extraordinary antennae of this species with a club consist- ing of five very elongate joints (longer than all the preceding joints together) of which that nearest the base is a little shorter than the rest distinguish it from all its described congeners known to me. I do not think the character to be sexual inasmuch as of flssiceps (which, has almost as elongate an antennal club though only three- jointed) I have seen enough specimens to render the presence of both sexes probable and I do not find any difference in the antennae of different examples. N. S. Wales ; a single specimen taken near Sydney. MELOLONTHIDES (true). RHOP^A. M. hirtuosa, sp. nov. Sat elongata (praesertim mas) ; subtiliter pubescens et pilis erectis sat numerosis (praesertim in pro- thorace) vestita ; testacea vel f usco-testacea ; capite pro- thoraceque confertim aspere (clypeo grosse minus crebre nee fortiter) quam H. heterodactylcB, Germ, multo minus sub- tiliter, elytris dupliciter (ut heterodactylce), pygidio ut prothorax, punctulatis ; prothorace quam longiori fere duplo latiori, antice fortiter angustato, lateribus crenulatis modice arcuatis, angulis posticis obtusis ; elytris ut heterodactylce subcostatis. Maris antennarum flabello elongato 7-articulato, articulo 3' {antennarum) intus producto. Feminae antennarum flabello brevi 5 articulato, articulis 4° 5° que (antennarum) intus productis. Long., 101. (mas.) 9 1. (fern.) ; lat., 41—5 1. This species is allied to heterodactyla^ Germ, and soror, Blackb. (from the other described species its closely punctured prothorax in combination with a 7-jointed male antennal flabellum at once distinguish it) from both of which it differs by the presence of 64 numerous long erect hairs on the upper surface (they are almost wanting in heterodactyla and soror) and by the markedly stronger and more asperate puncturation of its prothorax, and from soror also by the much less strongly rounded sides of that segment. The antennae of the male are very similar to those of the two species just named but the female has the club of its antennae only 5-jointed (in soror it is 6-jointed, — ^I do not know the female of heterodactyla, but Germar implies that its antennal club is 7- jointed). N.S. Wales. R. morbillosa, sp. nov. R. Mussoni affinis. Minus elongata ; supra breviter sparsim pubescens; testacea vel fusco-testacea;, capita rugulose inaequaliter, prothorace fortiter vix crebre (quam heterodactylce multo minus crebre), elytris rugulose sat grosse, pygidio confertim aspere, punctulatis ; prothoracis conformatione fere ut R. hirtuosce sed angulis posticis rectis bene determinatis ; elytris subcostatis (fere ut R. heterodactyloi). Maris antennarum flabello elongate 5-articulato, flabelli arti- culis 1° 2° que quam ceteri multo brevioribus (hoc quam ille longiori ad apicem profunde emarginato). Fem. latet. The club of the antennae in the male having only three long joints at once separates this species from all its described con- geners. In other respects it is very much like R. Mussoniy Blackb., but differs inter alia in its prothorax considerably more closely, and its elytra evidently more coarsely, punctured. N.S. Wales ; taken by Mr. Lea near Forest Reefs.