83 



Subfamily BARIDIIDES. 



I have examined a considerable number of genera and 

 species referred to this subfamily from various parts of the 

 world. They all have the side pieces of the mesosternum 

 almost or quite soldered together, large, and thrust like a stout 

 wedge between the flanks of the prothorax and elytra. The 

 main features relied upon for distinguishing the genera and 

 sections are the degrees of obliquity of the pygidium, the 

 apical segment of abdomen rounded or emarginate at its 

 tip, the prostcrnum channelled or not, the shape of the ros- 

 trum and dentition of femora. Only three genera and 

 seven species have previously been recorded from Australia ; 

 of these Baris^ is world-w^ide in its distribution,' Mycfirhs 

 occurs in New Guinea and the Malay Archipelago, and Plati/- 

 ph(mis,\ so far as is known, only from Queensland. In Mas- 

 ters' Catalogue, ApheJa is placed in the subfamily, but 

 wrongly so. ;|: The Australian genera known to me, including 

 some now first recorded or proposed, may be tabulated as 

 follows : — 



Prosternum deeply grooved Solenoharis. 



Prosteruum feebly grooA'ed. 



Pygidium concealed Gymnuharis. 



Pyffidum exposed Boris. 



Prosternum not grooved. 



Prothorax truncate at the apexK ... Acytliopeus. 

 Prothorax not truncate at apex. 



Pygidium covered or nearly so ... Ipsichora. 



Pygidium not covered My ct ides. 



Baris. 

 To this genus I refer a number of species which might 

 be regarded as belonging to several closely allied genera, but 

 I do not think it desirable to propose new generic names for 

 any of them, as the differences seem to be too slight to war- 

 rant generic rank. They all have the pygidium vertical, or 

 almost so, and that organ causes the fifth ventral segment to 



* Baridius of various authors. 



+ The coarsely-faceted eyes and approximate front coxse of 

 this genus must appear strangely at variance with the other 

 genera of the subfamily. 



X Pascoe did not refer it to anv subfamily at the time he 

 described it, but subsequently (T.E.S.', Lond., 1870, n. 23), he re- 

 ferred it to the Amalactides. It certainly does not belong to the 

 Baridiides, the side pieces of the mesosternum being utterly at vari- 

 ance Avith the genera of that subfamily ; nor does it seem very 

 much at home with the Australian genera of Amalactides. It cer- 

 tainly belongs to the same subfamily as Psaldus, referred by Pas- 

 coe to the Molytides. 



II Simply quoted from Pascoe. 



