776 NOTES ON AUSTRALIAN COLEOPTERA, 



that of a Nebria, and suggests the idea of Nebriosoma of Castehiau, 

 but the author of that genus attributes to it a nientum devoid of 

 a median tooth whereas in the insect before me the median tooth 

 of the mentum is well developed (simple, and pointed at the apex). 

 Loxonierus (from the Auckland Islands) and Migadops (from S. 

 America) are also Nebria-\ike Anisodactylid genera, but inter alia 

 the former is apterous, and the latter has the intermediate tarsi of 

 the male not (or scarcely) dilated, whereas the present insect is 

 winged and has the intermediate tarsi of the male dilated scarcely 

 less strongly than the anterior. Is it possible that Count de 

 Castelnau was mistaken as to the mentum of his Nebriosoma ? 

 Were it not for this doubt I should be disposed to form a new 

 genus for the species before me, but with that doubt in my mind 

 I prefer not to do so. 



I am afraid it can only be by the exhaustive process that this 

 insect can be placed even provisionally in Diaphoromerus, but I 

 select that genus on the one hand because the Baron de Chaudoir 

 in his monograph of it (Ann. Mus. Gen. 1878) has already made 

 it a receptacle for extremely diverse forms, and on the other hand 

 because the main structural characters of de Chaudoir's first 

 group of Diaphoromerus accord fairly well with the structural 

 characters of the present insect in spite of extreme superficial 

 difference. These characters are as follows, — mentum toothed ; 

 2nd joint of labial palpi plurisetose ; ligula free at the apex ; the 

 4 anterior tarsi of the male very strongly dilated and having the 

 1st joint much narrower than the following joints, the 4th 

 subbilobed, and the basal 4 all spongiose beneath (it is to be 

 noted however that the 4th joint is souiewhat smaller than in the 

 Diaphoromeri of de Chaudoir's fir.st group) ; hind tarsi slender and 

 elongate, with the basal joint much longer than the second.* The 

 principal characters that I notice as disqualifying the present 

 insect for association with the first group of Biaphoroinerus are as 



* This very important character seems to have been overlooked in some 

 instances by de Chaudoir ; otherwise he could surely not have associated 

 in one genus Harpahis Germari, Cast., and H. inomat2is, Germ. 



