289 



I conjecture this to be the species mentioned by Cham- 

 pion (Tr.E.S. 1894, p. 359) as ''perhaps" 0. villiger, Blanch., 

 as it is the only Ilopatrum that I have found in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Port Adelaide (Champion's locality). However 

 that may be, it is I think certainly not TJ . villiger, the elytral 

 striae of which are described as "without puncturation," and 

 which moreover is said to be from "Raffles Bay" a locality 

 on the north coast of Australia. It is nearer I think to the 

 species that I have no doubt is //. forridiim, Champ., than 

 to any other described Tlo'patrnm, but is readily dis- 

 tinguishable from it by, inter alia, the evidently convex in- 

 terstices of its elytra, and its less opaque dorsal surface. 



South Australia (widely distributed). 



IIOPATROMORPHA. 



(Gnen. nov. Ttnehnonidarnr)i;—Mesomori)hus, Reitter, 

 nom. 2^f'(^^<^c.) 

 Australian species of this genus have been described, I 

 believe, under six names. The lirst of them is HojKitrum vil- 

 liger, Blanch., the description of w^iich points to its place 

 being here. I have received, moreover, from Herr Gebien a 

 specimen under that name which is undoubtedly a member of 

 this genus, and it agrees fairly well with Blancliard's descrip- 

 tion. In 1892 I described a second species under the name 

 Ho'patrum Ion gi come (from Central Australia). In 1894 

 Champion described two species (HojKitriim dispersum and 

 vagahundum) in the Tr.E.S., Lond., and I described 

 (published a few months later than Champion's names) two 

 species (K. darling ense and Dar-wini). The species sent by 

 Gebien as vdliger, Blanch., is identical with that sent to me 

 by its author as di-'^persum, Champ. Disj)ersum is from Port 

 Darwin ; villiger was described from Raffles Bay ; two adja- 

 cent localities. Neither darhngerise nor Daruiui appears to 

 be identical with either of Champion's species, although vaga- 

 hnndutn and Darwirti are probably somewhat close to each 

 other. I have already (Tr.R.S., S.A., 1894, p. 218^, pointed 

 out distinctions between the two, — the former of which I have 

 not seen and I may now^ add the further note that Champion 

 calls joints 9 and 10 of the antennae of vagahundum "trans- 

 verse" (without qualification) whereas those joints in Bar- 

 wini are "vix transversis" (unfortunately printed in my 

 description ''vix convexis"), and moreover the seriate elytral 

 punctures of Darivini are so conspicuously very much 

 larger than those of dispersum. Champ, (which indeed are 

 almost non-existent) that Champion could not possibly have 

 failed to refer to that distinction in differentiating vagahun- 

 dum from disprrsuw if vagahundinn had been my Danrini. 



