Rey. H. Clark on the Chrysomelide of South Africa. 115 
i", posterior sacs of the liver; 0, appendage to the eye, of unknown 
import; s, median frontal process; ¢, orange-coloured oil-drops. 
Fig. 1. Young Nauplius of a Peneus, from the sea of Santa Catharina ; 
from above. 
Fig. 2. Foot of third pair of an older Nauplius, with the rudiment of the 
mandible: a, from below; B, from the side. 
Fig. 3. Young Zoéa of the same, from above. 
‘ig. 4. Parts of the mouth of the same Zoéa, from below. 
Fig. 5. Eyes of a somewhat older Zoea. 
"ig. 6. Older Zoéa of the same, from below. 
Fig. 7. Mandible of an older Zoéa. 
Fig. 8. Young Mysis-form of the same species, from the side. 
Fig. 9. Part of the basal joint of the inner antenna, with developed audi- 
tory apparatus, from a larva 4 mill. in length. 
Fig. 10. Frontal process and imner antenna of the third Mysis-like larva, 
from above. 
XII.— Catalogue of Chrysomelide of South Africa. 
By the Rev. Hamurt Crark, M.A., F.L.S. 
Eacu of the three great regions in the southern hemisphere 
possesses a fauna (as we might expect) peculiarly its own: in 
the beautiful Coleopterous group the Chrysomelide, this fauna 
is represented in South America by the special genus Dory- 
phora (which is the subject of the excellent monograph by 
Dr. Stal), in Australia by several special genera, Phyllocharis, 
Australaca, Chalcomela, &c. (which have been well and fully 
studied by Mr. Baly in his papers in the Entomological Society’s 
Transactions), and especially by Paropis; and in South Africa 
by certain genera which have a nearer affinity to European forms 
than any of the preceding, but the species of which have never 
yet been critically examined. This I propose to attempt. By 
the kindness of my friend Mr. Baly, I have the advantage of 
access to his rich collection; and so I am encouraged to hope 
that the comparatively few South-African species may be with- 
out much difficulty determined. 
The species of this paper includes the representatives of the 
two MS. genera Atechna, Chev., and Centroscelis, Chev. (De- 
jean’s Catalogue, ed. 3, p. 427): I can discover no real difference 
between them; they both are united by Hope (Coleopterist’s 
Manual, pt. 3. p. 164) under the name of Polysticta: his dia- 
gnosis is too brief, and not quite accurate ; but it is clear that 
these are the forms which he had before him (“the majority of 
the species are remarkable for the number of the guttz or spots 
with which they are adorned”’) ; and hence it is right that his 
name should be preserved. The following analysis of the genus 
will explain the arrangement of the species. 
gx 
