® 161 
male are frequently longitudinally depressed, and the depression 
more or less setose; the females are never depressed there (though 
occasionally flat), and the scales are but little different in appear- 
ance from those at the sides. 
As Mr. Blackburn has remarked, in Lacordaire’s classification, 
Emplesis, on account of the excavated prosternum, would come 
out of the Hrirhinides altogether ; but it does not appear to me 
to be desirable that it should. The only other subfamily to 
which at present it could be referred is the Cryptorhynchides, but 
from that group it is excluded by two characters in combination 
(not noticing the partial contiguity of the anterior cox, seen to 
a certain extent in Melanterius and a few others). These are the 
termination of the tibize, and the intercoxal process of the meso- 
sternum. In the Cryptorhynchides each tibia is almost invari- 
ably terminated by a strong curved hook, which appears as a 
-continuation of the tibia itself; whilst in Hmplesis there is a 
small subtriangular apical tooth, which can only be regarded as 
a supplementary process.* The intercoxal process is either plane 
or convex. In the former case it is usually subquadrate, and 
slopes down at an angle of about 45°; in the latter it is longer, 
and almost level with the coxe. In the Cryptorhynchides it 
appears as a cavernous receptacle for the apex of the rostrum, or 
in default. is turned up at the sides, so as to be more or less 
concave. 
The majority of the species are to be taken under the loose 
bark of living trees, sometimes in considerable numbers. Of 
filtirostris I have seen many thousands of specimens under the 
bark of an Eucalyptus at Walkaway. A piece of bark four or 
five inches square would sometimes cover hundreds. 
I do not think that the majority of the species can be satis- 
factorily described without taking into consideration features 
which are usually considered to be generic. In the tabulation 
supplied herewith a number of allied species are separated some 
‘distance. All of the following in appearance (especially as regards 
the ‘‘tesselation” of the upper-surface) more or less closely 
resemble each other :—assimilis, mundus, gravis, jilirostris, 
lithostrotus, femoralis, ignobilis, tuberculifrons, parvulus, impo- 
tens, brachyderes, macrosty!us, arcuatus, ellipticus, dispar, tessel- 
latus, consuetus, invidiosus, indistinctus, mediocris, and occiden- 
talis. Of the others, canaliculatus, cryptorhynchus, inamenus, 
pauperculus, epphipiger, multiarticulatus, and niveiceps would 
appear to form a natural group; whilst bellulus, cyphirhinus, 
* Mr. Pascoe describes the tibiz of Hmplesis as being “‘ apice inermes.” 
In filirostris (of the identification of which I have no doubt whatever) the 
tibize certainly are armed at the apex, but (as in most of the other species) 
‘the terminal process is almost entirely concealed by the clothing. 
