BY THE REV. T. BLACKBURN. 539 



This species is so close to C setosa that it would be wasting 

 space to repeat at length all the characters the two possess in 

 common. I am unable to specify any differences other than those 

 mentioned above, but they certainly point to something more than 

 mere local variation. The difference in the convexity of the 

 prothorax is very conspicuously noticeable if the longitudinal 

 outline of that segment be inspected from the side. I have seen 

 several specimens of this insect among which I believe both sexes 

 are included, — but if so their sexual characters are very slight. 

 Those specimens which I take to be females are the smaller 

 examples, and have the flabellum of the antennae and the tarsi a 

 little shorter than specimens that 1 regard as males, — but the 

 differences are not so well marked as to assure me that they are 

 sexual. The bluntness of the teeth on the front tibije together 

 with the uppermost tooth being much larger (in proportion to the 

 lower two teeth) than in G. setosa, — in which these teeth are 

 almost as in C. bella, — seems a reliable character. The front tibiae 

 of C. gibhosicollis scarcely differ from those of C. obesa, Burm. C. 

 gibbosicollis may be at once distinguished from C. testaceipennis, 

 Macl., (which also occurs in tropical Australia) by its much more 

 closely punctured head, 4-jointed flabellum of antennae, &c., &c. 

 The pygidium in this species is finely and somewhat closely punc- 

 tured and also bears a system of sparse setiferous granules. 

 N. Territory of S. Australia. 



Sericesthis. 

 Perhaps there is no other genus of Australian Coleoptera in such 

 a hopeless tangle as this is in. As far as I can ascertain sixteen 

 specific names have been attributed correctly to it or to synonyms 

 of it. The author of the genus is Dr. Boisduval who in 1832 

 ( Voy. de I'Astrolabe) described five species which he called Serices- 

 this gemincUa, nigrolineata, j)ullata, rufijiemiis and cervina, but 

 without stating the generic characters in a formal manner. These 

 descriptions are extremely poor and it is doubtful whether they 

 would suffice for the positive identification of any of the insects 

 on which they were founded. However in 1850 M. Blanchard 



