BY THE REV. T. BLACKBURN. 149 



conclusion, — that they represent an aberrant type of Erirhinidcf, 

 — and, therefore, I decide to describe them as such. They appear 

 to me to be aberrant only in respect of the rostrum which 

 (tliough not excessively short, being but little shorter than the 

 prothorax) is most unusually wide and depressed, its width on the 

 upper surface being not less than the length of the scape of the 

 antennae, and fully twice the thickness of the rostrum (as viewed 

 from the side). The rostrum, in fact, reminds one of the form of 

 a duck's bill. Owing to the upper surface being arched longi- 

 tudinally, and the lower surface scarcely so, the rostrum has a 

 subulate appearance when viewed from the side. The structure 

 of the scrobes is not very different from that of Glaucopela. The 

 rostrum and the general appearance are very suggestive of a 

 Cossonid (indeed the first species described below is very much 

 like Phlceophagus spadix, Hbst., but with the elytra much wider 

 at the base), but the combination of contiguous front coxae, 

 distinctly articulated antennal club (its basal joint not much 

 longer than the second) strongly dilated and bifid, 3rd tarsal joint 

 and 1st ventral suture well defined, seems impossible for a Cossonid. 

 I must acknowledge some misgivings as to whether it is possible 

 that this genus is identical with that characterised by Mr. 

 WoUaston under the name Thaumastophasis as a Cossonid. That 

 author's expressions, — " scapo longiusculo " and " metasterno 

 brevissimo," — would, however, be quite inapplicable to the species 

 before me, and I do not think they could be fairly applied to them 

 even if they were being compared with genera of Cossonidce. The 

 metasternum is a little longer and the antennal scape is very 

 much shorter for example than in Phlceophagus. Mr. Wollaston 

 does not mention the antennal club in his Thaumastophasis as 

 being distinctly articulated. On the whole, I do not see that 

 much confusion will result even if (with these qualifications) I am 

 re-naming Mr. Wollaston's genus, whereas it might be very 

 confusing if I were to describe as Thaumastophasis species which 

 should prove not to be attributable to that genus. I may add 

 that I have in my collection an example which seems to me to be 

 very possibly Mr. Wollaston's species (T. ocidatus), as it agrees 



