BY ARTHUR M. LEA. 693 



tinguish species that superficially strongly resemble each other.* 

 In consequence, I obtained and sent to M. RafFray as cotypes, 

 either for his own collection or for examination, a few species of 

 which the correctness of determination is doubtful. f But it is 

 quite certain that such species extremely closely resemble the 

 species they were supposed to be, on the upper surface. 



King's types, in fact, need to be carefully examined and 

 redescribed, with especial reference to the under surface and the 

 sexual characters. A few of his types are in the Howitt Collec- 

 tion, and these, by the courtesy of Mr. Jas. A. Kershaw, of the 

 National Museum, I was able to examine and to redescribe. 

 Some of Macleay's species also need redescription. 



In descriptions the sex, if possible, should always be noted; 

 and there are but very few species in which the males do not 

 possess some distinctive features in the antennae, legs, meta- 

 sternum, or ventral segments. 



Many of our species were originally referred to genera that 

 now M. Raffray regards as being entirely absent from Australia, 

 so that generic transfers are frequent, as unfortunately they are 

 iin so many other families. 



Sagola Tasmania, n.sp. (Plate xxi., tig.l). 



(J. Reddish-castaneous, elytra and legs slightly paler; palpi and 

 tarsi flavous. Clothed with moderately long and somewhat 

 yellowish pubescence. 



Head rather small; with a deep longitudinal impression. Eyes 

 very prominent. Antennae passing base of prothorax, first joint 

 cylindrical, slightly longer than second and third combined, these 

 somewhat rounded, second larger than third, fourth to tenth 

 trapeziform, ninth slightly wider than eiglith, tenth slightly 



• I believe it to be impossible to point out distinguishing features in the 

 females of certain species of Eupines, Ctenisojihus, and perhaps of a few other 

 genera that will enable coworkers to correctly identify such females, in 

 -species that are quite easily distinguished by masculine characters. 



t M, Raffray has commented on these. 



