257 



be the peculiar form of the dorsal surface of the head in 

 which the clypeus and forehead are scarcely distinguishable 

 inter se, except by a fine (though well-marked) suture, and 

 that does not appear sufficient. Its superficial resemblance 

 is to Platyde^miis, but inter alia its geminate-striate elytra 

 are inconsistent with a place in that genus. The sixth joint 

 of the antennae is extremely minute, and without careful exa- 

 mination the antennae appear to have only eight joints. 

 Victoria (Mr. Kershaw). 



Anodontonyx. 

 This genus was characterized by Dr. Sharp in 1890 in 

 an American publication, "Insect Life" (vol. ii. p. 302). In 

 the same year I described (P.L.S., N.S.W., pp. 546, etc.), 

 under the generic name Sericesthiii, three species which seem 

 to be members of Dr. Sharp's genus. I attributed them to 

 Sericesthis on the assumption that Lacordaire, Burmeister, 

 etc., were right in regarding the typical species of Scifala and 

 Sericesthis as congeneric, Sericesthis being the earlier name 

 of the two. Subsequent study has led me to the conclusion 

 that the two names are both of generic value, and had I made 

 that discovery at the time I described the species in question 

 I should have attributed them to Scitala; I failed to do so 

 only because the distinctness of the two genera had up to 

 that time escaped notice, and I regarded Scitala as a mere 

 synonym of Sericesthis, as I explained fully at the time (loc. 

 cit.). Anodontonyx is .very close to Scitala (as Dr. Sharp re- 

 marks), and I am not at all confident that the discovery of 

 new species intermediate in their characters will not even- 

 tually be fatal to its claim to be regarded as a good genus: I 

 do not think that I should venture to found a new genus for 

 its species if Dr. Sharp had not done so. I have already 

 (vide supra) described as Scitala Ino an insect which certainly 

 departs from Scitala in the direction of Anodontony.r. Only 

 one of the characters attributed to Anodontonyx seems to me 

 really to distinguish its species from all the species of Scitala — 

 viz., ''(antennarum) clava 'perhrevi,'" and even this needs 

 amplification by the additional statement that in Anodon- 

 tonyx (so far as at present known) antenna! sexual charac- 

 ters are almost non-existent. However, as the genus has 

 been formed, and its known species are certainly distinguish- 

 able by the antennal character, I think it should be retained, 

 at any rate provisionally. And here it seems necessary to 

 remark that the two species described by Dr. Sharp as mem- 

 bers of Anodontonyx difTer from each other by a character that 

 seems to me even more important from the generic point of 

 view than the antennal structure, which (I have several times 



