222 REVISION OF THE GENUS PAROPSIS, 



than in the series; from the 4th and 5th it can be at once- 

 separated by most of its species having both (a) deep and well 

 defined prothoracic fovete, (b) the suture of the elytra not carinate 

 behind, and all of them — except a single aberrant form {P. 

 variabilis, Chp.) which is specially treated below — ha^-ing one or 

 other of those characters in a very pronounced degree; and from 

 the 6th subgroup it is readily distinguished by the head not being 

 produced n front of the eyes more than is usual among the 

 Paropses in general. It is further distinguished from most of the 

 other subgroups by its not containing an}^ very small species and 

 very few not decidedly large. 



With regard to the species constituting this subgroup, I find 

 that (including the new species described below) there are pro- 

 bably* 51 names that have been applied to them. Of these, 

 however, it seems quite possible that one [deflorata, Chp.) may 

 represent a member of some other subgroup. I have not seen 

 any insect which I can specify as the one described, and the 

 description of the prothorax is ambiguous. Chapuis generally 

 uses of the prothorax of species of this subgroup some such phrase 

 as "fovea profunda ornato," but of this he says "ad latera 

 distincte foveolato," and adds "et punctato rugoso." This suggests 

 to my mind rather the idea of a species of the 5th subgroup in 

 which the vague light impression often present among much 

 rugulosity is a little more pronounced than usual than one of the 

 present aggregate (in which I do not know a species of which 

 the sides of the prothorax deserve to be called "rugosa"). Still 

 Chapuis' "distincte foveolato" seems to forbid omitting mention 

 of the insect here. It is described as whitish-testaceous on the 

 upper surface with the underside and legs mostly black. Long. 

 4i^ lines; occurring at King George's Sound. Unfortunately the 

 structure of the suture is not a character that Chapuis refers to 

 in his descriptions. 



The remaining 50 names seem to belong to species that are 

 undoubtedly members of this subgroup, but 3 of them are mere 



* I have not included rufiiKS, Fab., which will be discussed under the 

 name " cijxunidata, Newm." 



