Australian Goleoptera. 207 



widely lobecl in the middle. On the disc of the prothorax a very 

 strong carina runs back from the summit of the median tooth on 

 the front margin for half the length of the prothoi'ax, and a 

 strong carina runs forward on either side from the outer extrem- 

 ity of the basal lobe to a point a little outside the hind extremity 

 of the anterior carina, each end of these oblique carinse being 

 elevated with a distinct sharp tooth. This species can be at once 

 distinguished from all its previously described congeners by the 

 extraordinary sculpture of its prothorax pygidium and propygi- 

 dium. Its legs are of similar structure to those of the type of 

 C. tncequalis, Blackb., which probably indicates that it is a male. 

 It was obtained by beating dead branches and is probably con- 

 nected with some species of Hymeuopiera inhabiting the dead 

 wood. 



Victoria ; near Fernshaw. 



PECTINICORNES. 



Mastociiilus. 

 Several of the names that stand in Masters' Catalogue under 

 the heading of this genus are not capable of reliable identification 

 without examination of types, viz., Atisiralasicns, Perch., nitidulus, 

 Macl., polyphyllus, W. S. Macl., puticticoliis, Macl., and rugiceps, 

 Reiche. I have been able to examine the original type of poly- 

 phyllus, and can say that it is identical with the species to which 

 Burmeister attributes the name. From Burmeister's remarks on 

 australasicus I am afraid that insect must be regarded as scarcely 

 likely to be identified with certainty ; I propose therefore to 

 describe an insect which I believe to be that to which Percheron 

 applied the name. I think I know Sir W. Macleay's two species, 

 but as I have not seen the original types I shall abstain at 

 present from saying more than tl)at is probable they represent 

 valid species. Rugiceps, Reiche, is quite hopeless ; it is uncertain 

 even whether it is a Mastochilus. In Masters' Catalogue Passalus 

 Lottini, Boisd., appears as an Eriocnemis, but I can find no sutii- 

 cient reason for considering that to be its proper place ; certainly 

 the original description is useless, giving no information concern- 

 ing the size or habitat (except " New Holland ") or as to the 



