81 
faint indications of other lines in the intervals between the three 
well-defined lines. This species is quite unlike any other of the 
preceding species on account of its long narrow form as well as 
its style of colouring; its general appearance is distinctly 
suggestive of the Longicorn genus Syllitus. Its structural 
characters do not seem to differ much from those of the pre- 
ceding species (inguisitor) except in its head being less elongate, 
and the apical joint of its maxillary palpi being longer in pro- 
portion to the second joint. Its prothorax is distinctly more 
elongate, and has its greatest width not very much in front of 
the middle. Compared with australis and Zietzi it has the head 
narrower (and consequently longer in proportion to the width) in 
front, and its eyes considerably more strongly granulate, with 
the apical joint of the maxillary palpi more strongly securiform 
than in Zetzi, and iess so than in australis. 
N.W. Australia. 
oxacis (Sub-section I1.). 
O. (2?) caviceps, sp. nov. Modice elongata, minus angustata ; 
pubescens ; testacea, capite (postice) mandibulis ad apicem 
prothorace (hoc inequaliter trivittatim) elytris (margine et 
notulis nonnullis longitudinalibus discoidalibus antemedianis 
exceptis) antennis tarsisque plus minusve infuscatis ; capite 
elongato longitudinaliter concavo, subtilius minus crebre 
punctulato; palporum maxillarium articulo ultimo leviter 
securiformi, quam precedens paullo longiori ; mandibulis ad 
apicem simplicibus subacutis; antennis gracilibus, articulo 
apicali vix perspicue appendiculato; oculis permagnis, 
fortiter longitudinalibus (superne visis), fortiter granulatis ; 
prothorace subcordiformi, ut caput punctulato, vix inequalli, 
quam latiori parum longiori, latitudine majori sat longe pone 
apicem sita ; elytris confertim subtiliter subaspere punctu- 
latis, lineis subelevatis vix perspicue instructis. Long., 44— 
52 ].; lat., 13—121. 
Evidently near inquisitor and much like it in colour and 
markings, the infuscate parts however being much darker 
in the present species, which moreover is decidedly more 
nitid. The difference in the shape of the eyes however is so 
great as to suggest more than specific separation, and I do not 
think that difference is sexual. The shape of the ventral seg- 
ments is uniform in all the specimens before me of both species 
(the apical segment being widely rounded at its apex), but there 
are specimens of either species with protruding genitalia 
obviously identical in sex. Other structural differences are to be 
found in the head of caviceps being longitudinally concave and 
F 
