and Species of Coleoptera. 65 
This species was taken many years ago by Mr. Whitely, 
and was unknown to Mr. Lewis, who has formed extensive 
collections in Japan. I think it may be placed after MZ. vario- 
laris. 
Monochamus acanthias. 
M. robustus, pube sericante griseo-fulvescente tectus; capite antice 
punctis perpaucis impresso; antennis (d¢) corpore plus duplo 
longioribus, 12-articulatis, pallidis, nigro-annulatis ; prothorace 
valde transverso, sparse punctulato; elytris ampliatis, postice 
angustioribus, apicibus angulo exteriore spina elongata armatis, 
supra ineequatis, oblique biplagiatim saturatioribus, irregulariter 
sparse punctatis; corpore subtus pedibusque dense flavidulo- 
pubescentibus; tibiis anticis vix elongatis, flexuosis. Long. 12 
lin. 
flab. New South Wales (Manning River). 
The nearest allies of this species appear to be IZ. argutus 
and MW. solatus ; the latter, which has a dull mottled greyish 
pubescence, has I believe been also taken at Cape York. The 
other Australian species have the apices of the elytra rounded. 
In this species the spine is comparatively unusually long and 
slender, and is directed towards the median line of the body. 
The tendency of the antenne to form a twelfth joint by the 
division of the eleventh is shown in many species by a dark 
ring, at about two thirds of the length of the latter, simulating 
a joint; in this case, though it may not be invariable, the 
separation is well marked. I have adhered to the original 
generic name as it was used by Latreille, Serville, and others. 
Monohammus (from povos and dupa) has no application, and 
is only misleading; and if such be its derivation, I take it 
that the orthography should be Monammus. 
E,UNITHERA. 
(Ceroplesine.) 
A Thysia differt articulo basali antennarum cicatricoso, unguiculis 
divergentibus ; mesosternum elevatum, antice productum. 
The type Thysta viduata* (Pl. VIII. fig. 4) is apparently so 
closely allied to Thysta that, notwithstanding its differently 
formed mesosternum, I had no hesitation in placing it in that 
genus. Since, however, the appearance of Lacordaire’s ninth 
volume I have reexamined it, and find that two important 
characters in the classification of that author, viz. the relative 
position of the claws to one another and the cicatrix of the 
basal joint of the antenne, would not strictly permit it to 
* Anté, Annals, ser. 4, vol. iv. p. 208. 
Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 4. Vol. xv. 
On 
