('ai.emiv:^ia, Lac. 



'I'lljX' (J. c/li/ir/isis^ ( ';ist. 



Kt'iiiarkaljlc fur tlic aliiidst alisciit laiiiflhf uf the tarsi. 



P;leai.k, Xcwiuan. 



'/';//»■ K. riridis, ( liirrin. 



Lacordairc lias [niiiittMl nut that Si)iii(ila was in error in 



assigning simpli' claws to the tarsi, his character uf their being 



heternniert)iis is nlsd ijuite misleading; (Mon. I. y. 279, 

 CJidli'ii'li'riix). 



Perhaps the liest character is the excavation of tlie terminal 

 joint of the anteiiii;e, termed by Lac. (Genera p. 462) " un faux 

 article pen distinct." FJeale is a synthetic type, the same 

 structure of the mifciiiKi' being seen in Hrrohlgcr ; while certain 

 species show atfinity to Trirhodex {I'jj. It^idila), the prdiiotum is 

 i[uite that of C"Jiu/i/jpi/ii. 



Ehah'. K.^pHfa, Newni. — I suspect, viri(li>^, (iuerin. 



Eleale pulcher, Newm. I have shewn aT)Ove \_Mctiiliasij^ ef 

 Zi'i/ithirti/a^ that ]\I. Chevrolat is confused with regard to this 

 species. His notes, Rev. et Mag. 1874 p. 20. — iMem. 1S7() 

 p. 5., cannot apply to Newnifin's insect wdiich is a typical Kh'ali-. 



Eledlc hiiiiiiciiJnt'i, Spinola is, in my opinion, notwithstanding 

 rhev. note, Mem. p. 5, quite distinct from pulcher, Xewm. 



Eleale scrohUatiOi, Spin. jNFon. I. p. 15G {scrDhiculata, (1. and 

 IL Cat. 174;")) is probably an A/iJinis ; Spinola, as not unusual, 

 gives a wrong reference to pi. If) tig. G. Fig. 4 is given as 

 foveolatus Newm., and this is no doubt th(^ insect described, and 

 is not an Eleale. 



Eleale simiihms, Pascoe, (J. and \\. loc. cit., is a variety of 

 I'-plda, Pascoe without doubt. 



Eleale 07>?7o?Vfes-, Pascoe, Ann. and Mag. X. H. 187() Vol. xvii. 

 J). 51 ; the genus is, as ]\Ir. Pascoe observes, doul)tful, Init it has 

 no affinities here. It is, in fact, as I susi)ect mo.st New Zealand 

 i'ti'i-idit' will prove til be, a new genus. 



Eleale laiiiila, ( 'hev. Pev. et- Mag. 1874 p. 20 - shilplex, 

 Xewm. ^ ., Chev. Mem. 1876 p. 22. 



H. 



