214 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 



sat angustis sat parallelis; coxaj anticjfi globuli haud proniinentes, 

 intermedife subcontiguis, posticse laminiformes ad partem inter- 

 iorem latse extrorsum gradatira sinuatim angustiores ; pedes 

 modici ; tarsi quam tibiae parum breviores, subtus pubescentes, 

 leviter compressi, posticorum articulis 1° quam 2"^ vix longiori 

 2° quam 3"* et 3° quam 4"'* paullo longioribus omnibus simplicibus ; 

 unguiculis appendiculatis ; segmenta ventralia 2" et 3° utrinque 

 profunde late longitudinaliter excavata. 



The insect for which I propose this new name is an extremely 

 remarkable one, combining in the most perplexing manner the 

 characters of the Elateridce and Eticnemidce with a facies different 

 from that of a typical member of either family and somewhat 

 suggestive (as regards head prothorax and elytra viewed from 

 above) of Tetiebrionid genera {e.g. Docalis or Exangeltus). Its 

 metasternum sharply pointed between the intermediate coxse, its 

 head with the clypeus not continuing the convexity of the general 

 surface and its porrect mandibles seem to forbid its being 

 referred to the EiunemidcB. The absence of a prosternal " chin- 

 piece " limits it to the Campylides if it is an Elaterid. Its slender 

 tibice are inter alia vnilta inconsistent with the idea of its being 

 a Cebrionid. I have considered the ]iossibility of its being a 

 very aberrant Dascyllid — the Dascyllidce of Lacordaire including 

 some very diverse forms. In that family there is no place that 

 can be thought of as possible for this insect unless in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Stenocolus and several allied genera which I have 

 not seen, and I think the absence of a distinctly visible labrum as 

 well as the form of the head (which is almost Eucnemid in shape) 

 will alone suffice to preclude association with the Dascyllidce. 

 Turning to the Campylides I find no structural character abso- 

 lutely irreconcilable with tlie present species. The absence of 

 a distinct labrum is no doubt anomalous, but M. Lacordaire 

 mentions one Canipylid genus [Plastocerits) in which he thinks 

 the labrum is wanting — although M. Candfeze asserts it to be 

 present but very inconspicuous. The form of the head appears to 

 me at most an exaggeration of forms described oy M. Lacordaire 

 as exhibited by some Canipylid genera and is perhaps to be 

 expected to accompany the disappearance of me labrum. The 

 antennae (robust long and tiliform, with the 2nd joint attached 

 to the basal one on tlie under surface, slightly behind the a})t'X 



