190 Mr. C. J. Gahan’s notes on the 
specimen is probably a female, and the differences men- 
tioned may be only sexual. 
50. Monohammus mixtus, Hope. 
Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1841, p. 48. 
Taken at Adelaide River and Roebuck Bay by Mr. 
Walker. The species occurs also in many other parts of 
Northern Australia, and in some of the neighbouring 
islands. There are examples also in the British Museum 
from Hong-Kong and from Java, which do not seem to 
me to be distinct. 
51. Zygocera lugubris, Pasc. 
Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., ser. 3, vol. i., p. 541. 
One example taken at Hobart in Tasmania, which 
very closely resembles an Australian specimen named 
by Mr. Pascoe. This species may possibly be identical 
with Zygocera canosa, HKrichs. 
Ancita, Thoms. 
Syst. Ceramb., p. 63 (1864). 
= Hebecerus, Thoms., Essai. Class. Céramb., p. 348 
(1861), nec. Kolenati (1845). 
= Hebesecis, Pasce., Journ. Ent., vol. i1., p. 353 (1865). 
The characters of Ancita, as detailed by Thomson and 
Lacordaire, apply in every respect to the species in- 
cluded by these authors in the genus Hebecerus, Thoms. 
To one who was dependent upon the descriptions only, 
Ancita would appear to be essentially distinguished from 
Hebecerus by the possession of a broad open cicatrix at 
the apex of the scape of the antenne. ‘This difference, 
however, does not really exist, inasmuch as all the 
species of Hebecerus also have the apex of the scape 
provided with a broad incomplete cicatrix, which is 
limited towards the inner and lower border by an oblique 
and tolerably distinct carina. 
Hebesecis was proposed by Pascoe as a substitute for 
the preoccupied name of Hebecerus ; but Ancita, having 
in the meantime been characterised, must on grounds of 
priority become the name of the genus. 
