83 
TRICHANANCA. 
A specimen sent to me by Mr. Lea as his Lemodes corticalis is 
certainly congeneric (I think it is conspeeific, though somewhat 
ditferently coloured) with my 7. victorvensis. On careful con- 
sideration I think that, in spite of much unlikeness in facies, it is 
really allied to Lemodes, though not generically identical. Apart 
from general facies, I find inter alia that the apical joint of the 
maxillary palpi in Lemodes is an equilateral triangle reversed 
(its apex in contact with the penultimate joint, its base forming 
the truncate apex of the palpus), while in 7richananca the apical 
joint is an isosceles triangle connected with the penultimate 
joint by ashort stem protruding from the extremity of the base,— 
much as it is in Copidita; in T'richananca the eyes are very 
much larger and more coarsely granulate than in Lemodes; in 
Trichananca the front tarsi have their basal two joints of equal 
length viewed from above, on the undersurface the basal joint is 
seen to be considerably the longer (the basal joint being strongly 
produced on one side, so as to resemble a bilobed joint with one of 
its lobes broken off), and the claw joint is very short (the part 
projecting beyond the fourth joint not being longer than the 
fourth joint itself), while in Lemodes the basal joint is simple, 
and twice as long as the second, the second third and fourth 
joints are equal inéer se and the claw joint is as long as the 
preceding three together; in TZ'richananca the head is very 
short in front so that the interval between the base of the man- 
dibles and of the antenne is almost nil, while ZLemodes has a 
distinct muzzle so that there is quite a long interval between the 
base of the antenne and of the mandibles ; in Lemodes the base 
of the head is almost straight and scarcely narrower than the 
head across the eyes, while in 7’rzchananca the width across the 
eyes is by far the greatest width of the head. Unquestionably, 
however, the structure of the sterna and cox is sufficiently 
similar in the two genera to suggest the probability of their being 
allies, which is further indicated by the resemblance of the penul- 
timate two joints of the maxillary palpi in one and the other. 
It is possible, therefore, that I was in error in referring this 
insect to the (demeride, and that if Lemodes is rightly placed 
in the Pyrochroide (concerning which M. Lacordaire expresses 
his doubt) the present genus also should, perhaps, stand in that 
family. It should, however, be added that 7. victoriensis bears 
much more superficial resemblance to the Tasmanian and New 
Zealand Techmessa than to Lemodes, except, perhaps, in its dis- 
tinctly cordiform prothorax and stouter legs; though its coarsely 
granulated eyes and other characters forbid its being referred to 
that genus. I cannot agree with Mr. Lea’s remark that the 
head has a distinet neck. The relation between the head and 
prothorax is quite as in Techmessa. 
