COLEOPTERA ^s^ 



o'^D 



(i) Dacnitiis ciirrax, sp. nov. 



Fusco-niger, baud nitidus, antennis pedibusque fusco-testaceis ; parcius pubescens ; 

 prothorace suboblongo, parce punctato ; elytris convexiusculis, profunde striatis. 

 Long. 6\ mm. 



Plate XIII. fig. 8. 



We have only two specimens of this curious little Elater. I do not know their 

 se.x, but suspect them to be males, and that the female may be a larger insect, perhaps 

 considerably different in form. 



The antennae are very long, not serrate. The head is coarsel}' and very densely 

 punctured : in strong opposition to the thorax, which has but little punctuation. The 

 sides of the thorax are slightly bisinuate ; and there is no raised line on the inner 

 margin of the hind thoracic angles. The scutellum is quite distinct but not so elongate 

 and pointed at the tip as is usual. The elytral striae are deep and there is very little 

 sculpture on the interstices ; these show some irregularities, difterent in the two indi- 

 viduals. The legs are both long and stout, the femora projecting much beyond the 

 sides of the bodies. 



Hai!. Kauai, 13. i\. 1895. O" '^he high plateau, under a log or stone on damp 

 mud (Perkins). 



Subfam. EUCNEMINI. 



The subfamily Eucnemini includes at present about 600 species, and is found in 

 all parts of the world except the cold regions. It is apparently entirely xylophagous, 

 all the species living in the wood of trees. It is most difficult to deal with, as the 

 species are extremely rare in collections, and most of them have been founded on 

 unique specimens. Hence the classification of the group is in a very rudimentary state. 

 It was monographed by Bonvouloir in 1870 (Ann. Soc. ent. France, sen 4, Vol. x. 

 suppl.) and his classification was little more than a tabulation of the genera intended to 

 facilitate the determination of the species. The genera Droiiiafo/iis and Eoriiax were 

 recognised by him as two of the most e.xtensive, and were diagnosed by the relation 

 of the eye to the groove for the antennae. Our species with one e.xception all belong 

 to these two genera, and it would be impossible in the case of some of them to say 

 whether they should be placed in Droiuacolus or Eornax. 



Recently (Ann. Soc. ent. France, lxx. 1901, pp. 636 — (564), the genera have been 

 treated by M. Fleutiaux in a new table in which Bonvouloir's character has been 

 entirely abandoned, and Eoriiax and Di-oniacolits are distinguished by the former 

 possessing dentate, the latter simple claws. According to this all our species (with the 

 one exception noticed) come under Droiuacolus, and I have here adopted that view. 



50—2 



