265 



marginata utrinque parum sinuata ; scutelio punctulato ; 

 elytris geminato-striatis, sat crebre subfortiter punctula- 

 tis; pygidio sat crebre subfortiter punctulato; tibiis anti- 

 cis extus tridentatis; tarsis posticis inodicis, articulo 

 basali quam 2i'^ manifeste breviori ; coxis posticis quam 

 nietasternuni sat niulto brevioribus ; segmento ventrali 

 apicali leviter emargiiiato. Long., 4^^ 1. ; lat., 2i 1. 

 Easily distinguishable from its near allies by the well-de- 

 fined hind angles of its prothorax, which, viewed from above, 

 seem to be almost right angles, but when looked at from the 

 side are seen to be in reality decidedly obtuse. I have four 

 specimens which I took flying in the evening; all are in good 

 condition. I can find no difference likely to be sexual 

 among them, unless it be that one of them is more ovate and 

 a little less elongate than the others. The body beneath is 

 very nitid, the metasternum with only a few fine hairs. 

 New South Wales : Blue Mountains. 



A. (Scitala) languida, Er. f / = Sericesthis nigrolineata, 

 Boisd.). In a former memoir (Pr. Lin. Soc, N.S.W., 1890, 

 pp. 541, etc.) I have discussed the various sjyecies which Bois- 

 duval named (the word "described" is hardly applicable) under 

 the undescribed generic name Sericesthis, and in that memoir 

 I indicated (as was then the case) that I had no specimen be- 

 fore me which I could confidently identify with A. Icmguida, 

 Er., but mentioned that previous authors had made the name 

 a synonym of A. nigroJineata^ Boisd. Having subsequently 

 seen, as noted under Scitala, the type of S. lanrpdda, Er., I 

 am able to say that the synonymy cited is probably correct, 

 for the following reasons. There are two species, and only 

 two, known to me which the very short description of 7iu/roU- 

 neata will fit, viz., that which is accepted (correctly, I believe), 

 as Sericesthis (Melolontlia) pruinosa, Dalm., and Anodon- 

 tonyx (Scitcda) languida^ Er. That the latter is the species 

 Boisduval described rests upon the authority of Blanchard. 

 Now Blanchard presumably had before him the type of Bois- 

 duval's species, but certainly not that of languida, nor of 

 S^. pruinosa, Dalm. He, however, had before him Tasmanian 

 specimens of an insect which he regarded as languida, Er 

 There can be little doubt that he was right in so regarding 

 them, so far as I can judge, inasmuch as I have never seen S. 

 pruinosa, Dalm., from Tasmania, and should probably have 

 done so if it occurred (at any rate commonl}") in Tasmania; 

 and, moreover, if it had been before Blanchard he could not 

 possibly have supposed it to be languida, Er. The conclusion, 

 therefore, seems unavoidable that the very recognizably-des- 

 cribed A. languida must be regarded as identical with the 



