did 
and 
A very pretty species, with the general appearance of a 
Dohrnia, but having eyes granulated like those of a typical 
Copidita. The short apical joint of its maxillary palpi seems to- 
me inconsistent with a placein the latter genus. However, fo 
present convenience I follow Mr. Horn in treating that asa 
non-generic character. 
Victoria. : 
copipita (Sub-section IIT.). 
C. dentipes, sp. nov. Elongata, sat angusta; minus nitida ; 
rufo-testacea, capite antennis palpis tibiis tarsis (horum 
articulis apicalibus 2 exceptis) metasterno abdomineque 
piceis vel nigro-piceis, elytris obscure cyaneis ; capite sat 
brevi, subtilius minus crebre punctulato; palporum maxil- 
larium articulo ultimo elongato-cultriformi; mandibulis ad 
apicem bifidis ; antennis sat gracilibus ; oculis magnis, grosse 
granulatis ; prothorace crebrius subtilius punctulato, cordi- 
formi, vix ineequali, quam latiori vix longiori; elytris con- 
fertim vix aspere subtilius punctulatis, lineis elevatis vix 
perspicue instructis; unguiculis subtus apicem versus. 
dentatis (sub-bifidis). Long., 34 1.; lat., 121. 
Very like the preceding (C. pulchra) in colour and general 
appearance, but, znter alia, easily distinguishable by its strongly 
dentate claws, which Mr. Horn would regard as removing it from 
Copidita. Its very strongly granulated eyes are inconsistent 
with Ischnomera (Asclera). No doubt it will eventually form a 
new genus. 
Australia (exact locality uncertain). 
DOHRNIA. 
This genus was founded upon a species having extraordinary 
antennal sexual characters. The eminent specialist on the 
Heteromera, Mr. Champion (Tr. E.8., Lond., 1895, p. 246)states that 
those sexual characters are not generic, and describes a species 
from Tasmania in which they are wanting. I find that I have 
an undescribed species in my collection which may be referred to 
Dohrnia. 
D. (Ananca ?) Boisduvali, Blackb. This species, referred by 
me to Ananca doubtfully (I regarded its simple antenne as re- 
moving it from Dohrnia) is closely allied to D. simplex, Champ., 
which I have collected in various localities in Tasmania. It 
differs from the latter inter alia by the colouring of its head and 
legs, and by its much smaller prothorax, the sides of which are 
much more strongly incurved behind the anterior tuberosity, 
making the segment very much narrower in the hinder part and 
the extremities of the base much more prominent. 
