BY ARTHUR M. LEA. 765. 



third not much longer than wide, fourth rather briefly subovate- 

 and tipped with a seta. Prothorax almost as long as wide, widest 

 near apex, the sides thence rather gently decreasing in width to 

 base, with a very shallow depression on each aide near base, and 

 with a small fovea in middle near base; almost impunctate. 

 Elytra distinctly wider than long, apex much wider than base and 

 gently incurved to middle; dorsal striae rather wide on basal 

 slope, but then narrow'ed and terminated before middle; almost 

 impunctate. Upper surface of abdomen with second segment in- 

 creasinsj in width from base to apex, slightly longer than third 

 and fourth combined, but shorter than lifth, fourth scarcely one- 

 third the lengtli of third; lower surface very feebly convex along 

 middle, apical segment depressed. Metasiernuvi depressed alono- 

 middle. Legs moderately long; front trochanters and front femora 

 strongly and acutely dentate; tibiee moderately curved. Length 

 2-21 mm. 



Hab. — Tasmania : Huon River, in tussocks; Launceston(A. M._ 

 Lea). 



In many respects close to the description of Tyrus spinosus, 

 but smaller; and head and prothorax of an almost uniform shade 

 of colour(of colour, Westwood says " Niger, ...capitis facie antice 

 picea,...prothorace piceo; elytris sanguineis"). The prothorax is 

 not wider than the head across the eyes, but really a trifle nar- 

 rower. Westwood describes the autennpe as of ordinary form, 

 but in the figure the basal joint is drawn as stouter, shorter and 

 much less cylindrical than in the present species, which also Iims 

 a small medio-basal prothoracic impression, that is neither men- 

 tioned nor figured in T. spinosus. T. nitidus has the front legs 

 similarlyarmed,but is figured and described as having the abdomen 

 produced in the middle and the tips of the antennae different. 

 It is closer to T. Uevis than to any other species known to me, 

 but the antennae are wider, abdomen darker than head, and con- 

 siderably wider than in that species. 



I .should have imagined the three specimens before me to be 

 all males, but as Kaffray has described the dentition of the lews . 

 in the female of T. htvis, it is possible that they are all female* 



