502 STUDIES IN AUSTllALIAN ENTOMOLOGY, 



Antennca light, filiform ; 3rd joint almost one-half longer than 

 4th, apical joint long, narrow, pointed. 



Apterous. 



Other features in common with other divisions of the Feronides, 



Its position seems to be between Gyphosoina, Hope,"^ and 

 JVotonomus, Chaud. From Cyphosoma it may be readily dis- 

 tinguished by the presence of an abbreviated subscutellar stria, 

 and by the segments of the abdomen not having a transverse line 

 across them. It is more difficult to point out decidedly distinctive 

 characters between Sarticus and Notonomus ; the following seem 

 the most noticeable : (a) the narrow border along the anterior 

 margin of the pro thorax, which is entire in Sarticus, does not 

 reach the middle of the margin in Notonomus ; (b) the posterior 

 marginal punctures of the prothorax difier somewhat in their 

 position — in Sarticus these are always placed on the edge of the 

 margin, aud a little more forward than in Notonomus ; (c) the 

 basal segment of the abdomen is always punctate in Sarticus, but 

 not so in Notonomus. 



The following is a tabular view of all the species of Sarticus 

 I have seen ; those unknown to me, viz., S. iriditinctus, Chaud., 

 and S. quadrisulcatus, Chaud., I have omitted. f 

 I. Dorsal strise of elytra not punctate. 



Elytra convex *S'. aubei, Ca stein. 



Elytra depressed *S'. Macleayi, sp.nov. 



II. Dor.sal striae of elytra punctate. 

 A Mesosternal and metasternal 

 episterna not punctate. 



* The genus Cyphosoma was founded by Hope (Ann. and Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. 1842, IX. p. 426) for an insect from Port Essingtou, which he named 

 Cyphosoma unicolor. Chaudoir has determined (Bull. Mosc. 1878. LIII. 

 pt. iii. p. 35) Cyphosoma, Hope, to be the same as Cratogaster, Blanch. 

 Hope's name, which seems to have been lost sight of, must therefere be 

 adopted. 



f Fero'iia lesiteuri, Casteln., Trans. Roy. See Victoria, p. 210, is in- 

 cluded in Sarticus in Masters' Catalogue, the authority being de Chaudoir 

 (Ami. Mils. Genov. 1874, p. 596). It is unknown to me, but from de 

 Chaudoir's description it is evidently not a Sarticus, nor do I think he 

 intended that it should be placed in that genus. 



