BY THOMAS G. SLOANE. 135 



fled as Ilarpahts inornatus Germ., though Chauiloir had in 1878 put H. inornatus 

 Germ., as a synonym of Harpalus australis Dej. I believe that on this question 

 Chaudoir was right. The Simson collection contains specimens which are evi- 

 dently H. puncticauda Bates, by their heavier form, prothorax more rounded on 

 sides, and trochanters obtuse at apex (not almost straight on outer side nearly to 

 apex and truncated in a curve from inner side) ; this is the same thing, from 

 description, as H. latiusculus Chaudoir, but seems to rne conspecific with a speci- 

 men from Lannceston, which I cannot differentiate from H. peroni of the main- 

 land; therefore, I feel unable to consider //. puncticauda Bates as a variety, but 

 this is a point that can only be settled by careful collecting throughout Tasmania. 

 The sharpness of the angulation of the lower side of the femora in c? varies in 

 degree in Tasmanian specimens, as in other species of the genus; in the specimen 

 from Launceston referred to above, it is shortly dentate. In length Tasmanian 

 specimens vary from 6.7 to 8 mm., and vary in colour from a dull copper-c.:lour 

 to almost black. Tt was numbered 2478 and 2483 in Simson collection, but I 

 cannot differentiate the specimens so numbered. 



Hab. — Launceston, Brighton, Evandale, Longford, Interlaken (Simson) : Par- 

 attah, Stonor, Hobart (Lea). Widely spread in Australia, 



Hypharpax australis Dejean. 



Hab. — Launceston, Evandale, Great Lake (Simson, No. 2484) ; Stonor. ]\Iount 

 Wellington (Lea) ; Lord Howe Island (Lea). Widely spread in S.E. Austr.iha. 



Hypharpax aereus Dejean. 



Ilab. — Hobart (Lea). Southern coastal districts of Australia. 



Hypharpax moestus Dejean. 



Hab. — Brighton ( Simson, No. 2881 ) ; Hobart ( Lea ) . Also reported I'rom 

 Melbourne. 



Genus C E N G M D s. 



Cenogmus rotundicollis Castelnau. 



Hab. — Tasmania (Lea). Very widely distributed over Australia. 



Genus A m b l t s t o Ji u s. 



Erichson, Kaf. Mark. Brandb., i., p. 59, 1837; Hispalis Rambur, Faun. A)idal., 

 p. 135, 1842; Megaristerus Nietner, Ann. Mag. N.H., 1858, p. 427; Notopk-ilus 

 Blackburn, Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aust., 1887, p. 185; Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, 

 1889, p. 1250; Thenarotidius Sloane, op. cit. 1898, p. 461; Psilonothus Sloane, 

 op. cit., 1899. p. 557. 



All authoi-s have not been in agreement as to the position of the genus Ambly- 

 stomus; for Erichson, Lacordaire, Bates, Ganglbauer, and Tschitscherine its jjlace 

 was in the tribe Harpalini; for Schaum, in the Lebiini; for Bedel and Apfelbeck 

 in the Licinini; in the European Catalogue of 1906 it is placed in a special tiibe; 

 I believe it to represent a group in the tribe Harpalini. The genus is here used in a 

 wide sense, the genera Notophihis, Thenarotidius and Psilonothus being included in 

 it. Of these, Thenarotidius is unquestionably a synonym, and I do not know 

 definite reasons foi' maintaining yotophilus and Psilonothus as distinct. Koto- 

 philus has the clypeus and lalirum symmetrical, but the want of symmetry in 



