44 
The species to which this one appears to me most nearly allied 
is C. Leai, Blackb. (regarding the position of which in the genus 
some remarks will be found, applying also to this insect, in 
P. L.S., N.S.W., 1893, p. 80), but the exigencies of classification 
remove it from the neighbourhood of that species in my tabula- 
tion on account of its eyes being less widely separated from each 
other. 
Queensland ; sent to me by Mr. French. 
C. Cresus, sp. nov. C. Mercurio, Blackh., affinis ; oculis inter 
se minus (vix magis quam antennarum articuli 2' longitu- 
dine) remotis ; prothorace quam longiori fere duplo latiori, 
distincte (sed subobsolete) punctulato, antice distincte (et 
fortiter sinuatim) emarginato et minus angustato, elytris 
parum distincte striatis, striis magis subtiliter punctulatis, 
interstitils parum distincte convexis ; cetera ut C. Mercurius. 
Long., 64 1; lat., 341. 
Except in respect of the differences specified above the de- 
scription of C. Mercurius (P. L.8., N.S.W., 1892, p. 449) applies _ 
to the present species, which in my tabulation of the species of 
Chaleopterus (loc. cit. 1893, pp. 56, &c.) would stand beside 
Mercurius (on page 64), and may be thus distinguished from it :— 
L. Interval between eyes considerably greater than length 
of 2nd antennal joint # ... Mercurius. 
LL. Interval between eyes ase greater than length of 
2nd antennal joint xf “3 wa .. Creesus. 
This species is also very near C. major, Piece which has the 
interval between its eyes of about the same width, but differs in 
its notably larger size, different colour (the elytra being much less 
conspicuously tinged with purple) and different elytral sculpture, 
the punctulate striz being effaced near the base, while in Cresus 
the punctulate striz are continuous quite close to the base. 
N.W. Australia (given to me, I believe, by Mr. J. J. Walker). 
C. major, Blackb. Since I described this species (P. LS., 
N.S.W., 1892, p. 449), I have seen some more specimens, and am 
now satisfied that the type, which I mentioned as probably a 
male isin reality a female. The male is somewhat smaller (the 
smallest I have seen is long. 7? 1.) with the apical ventral seg- 
ment more strongly punctured than in the female and with its 
surface even, while in the female there is a well marked 
longitudinal concavity. 
C. proditor, sp. nov. C. majori, Blackb., attinis; colore in 
elytris viridis nonnihil purpureo-micans; oculis inter se 
manifeste magis remotis; elytrorum interstitiis perspicue 
magis convexis apicem versus fere subcostatis; cetera ut 
C. major. Long., 8—941.; lat., 4—52 1. 
EE 
