140 NOTES ON AUSTRALIAN COLEOPTERA, 



instructo ; elytris snlcatis, sulcis vix manifeste punctulatis, 



interstitiis granulis sat parvis et setulis suberectis ornatis ; 



femoi'ibus tibiisque omnibus dentibus singulis armatis. 

 Maris antennis lostri prope apicem insertis ; tibiis anticis 



vix elongatis, [Long. 4-4|, lat. I5-I4 lines. 



In this species the derm is of two colours, being ferruginous 

 with the base of the elytra (widely) and a fascia behind the 

 middle of the same black. In fresh non-abraded specimens, 

 however, this variegation of the derm is not very conspicuous. 

 The scales are arranged as follows : — Those of ferruginous colour 

 are few and very inconspicuous, and need to be looked for with 

 a lens, except ou the scutellum, where they are condensed (the 

 general appearance being of a black and white insect) ; I fear the 

 head and prothorax are more or less abraded in all my examples, 

 but in the brightest of them the ferruginous scales are a little 

 more conspicuous than on other parts, and there is a snowy white 

 spot in front of the scutellum (probably the remains of a larger 

 mark) ; the front half of the elytra is indeterminately marbled 

 with black and white, immediately behind which is a space 

 almost deprived of ivhite scales (so that it appears as a conspicuous 

 wide black fascia scarcely reaching the suture) ; this space is 

 followed by one on which nearly all the scales are white mixed 

 with a few ferruginous, and which extends to the apex but is 

 interrupted by the subapical callosity, that and the space round 

 it being black. The scales on the underside and on the legs are 

 almost entirely white. The tooth on the hind tibise (which is 

 below the middle) is larger and better defined than that of the 

 front tibise. 



This species may be at once separated from many of its congeners 

 by the total absence of large fasciculated tubercles from its upper 

 surface. Unfortunately there are several species described by 

 Boisduval and Pascoe in such fashion that it is most difficult to 

 identify them. However, it may be said that Boisduval's cethiops 

 is very much smaller than the present insect, and that it seems 

 hardly possible that Mr. Pascoe could have failed to mention the 

 presence of a well-defined tooth on the inner margin of all the 



