Australian Chrysomelidae in the British Museum. 263 
Ditropidus inconspicuus, sp. n. 
3. Black, upper-surface with a slight bronzy gloss; basal half 
of antennae testaceous. : 
Head shagreened and with small punctures, becoming distinct in 
front; eyes widely separated. Prothoraxz about thrice as wide as 
the median length, side strongly rounded in front; scutellar lobe 
distinctly notched, punctures rather dense, but small and not very 
sharply defined. Scutellum small, more than twice as long as wide. 
Elytra with outlines gently rounded and continuous with those of 
prothorax, with inconspicuous rows of small punctures, but the 
sides with distinct striae, interstices with minute punctures and 
faintly rugulose. Basal joint of front tarsi rather large. Length 
(3, 2), 1:75-2 mm. 
2. Differs in being rather more robust, antennae and legs some- 
what shorter, basal joint of front tarsi smaller and abdomen with 
a large, round, deep apical fovea. 
Hab. New South Wares: Sydney (C. Darwin). 
Types in British Museum. 
A small briefly-elliptic species with a thin scutellum 
much as in D. scutellaris Lea, but differs from that species 
in being smaller, prothorax with much smaller and less 
sharply defined punctures, lateral striae of elytra less 
deep, head with denser punctures, its median line less 
conspicuous, labrum darker, etc. The head and under- 
surface are pubescent, but very sparsely and inconspicu- 
ously so. 
OcNIDA. 
The original diagnosis of Ocnus of Clark (subsequently 
altered to Ocnida by Lefevre) is very unsatisfactory; 
Chapuis and Blackburn could not place it, but the latter 
evidently thought it might be a valid genus, as Baly had 
referred a second species to it. By the courtesy of Mr. 
Arrow I have seen authenticated specimens of both species 
(viridis and. pallida), the former from Baly’s collection and 
compared with the type, the latter marked “ Type,” but 
evidently a cotype; but I cannot regard the two species 
as congeneric, or even as belonging to closely allied genera. 
Clark described the head of viridis as “ haud verticale, 
penitus porrectum,” and said the legs were as in Edusa, in 
comparing with which he also spoke of ‘‘ its more porrect 
head.’ The differences he mentioned as separating it from 
Edusa axe all worthless, the head (except for a slight 
