274 
chrus oblo/if/us, Har, with which its author subsequently 
stated that .4. h run n ens, Shp., is identical. If I am in error 
in referring these specimens to Antiochrus they must be re- 
garded as members of an unnamed genus very near to Liparo- 
chriis. There can, at any rate, be no objection to placing 
them provisionally in Antioc/unts. Dr. Sharp says that the 
only definite character he can assign to Antiochrus^ as dis- 
tinguishing it from Liparochj-us, consists in the great dilata- 
tion and compression of the posterior tibiae, which is certainly 
very conspicuous in all the specimens I am discussing ; but it 
is unquestionably the case that the form of the tibiae is not 
constant in typical Liparochri, some of them (^.g., L. gemi- 
natus, Har.), having hind tibiae very much compressed and 
dilated ; in fact, almost as strongly as they well could be. I 
should, therefore, as far as that particular character is con- 
cerned, hesitate to regard it as generally satisfactory if 
it stood alone. I find, however, that the species 1 regard as 
Antiochri also differ from Liparochrus very considerably in 
facies, being (as Dr. Sharp remarks of the typical Antio- 
chrus, though he does not definitely make it a generic char- 
acter, probably on account of having seen only one species of 
the genus), in shape more like Trox than J.ipftrochrus, i.e., 
more elongate, narrow, and parallel than Liparochrus. When 
in addition to this marked difference in fades I observe that 
all these Troa^-shaped allies of Liparochrus with exaggeratedly 
dilated posterior tibiae have also a peculiar elytral sculpture, 
of which there is no trace in any described typical Liparo- 
chrus, I have no hesitation in regarding them as generically 
distinct from Liparochrus. The peculiar sculpture I 
refer to is the presence (on the surface of the elytra close 
within the hinder part of the lateral margin, and more or less 
extended forward, according to the species) of several very 
fine, parallel raised lines placed close to each other, and paral- 
lel with the actual margin. In Liparochrus the character of 
the elytral sculpture is uniform quite up to the margin. 
Although it seems desirable to set forth the foregoing 
notes on a genus of Australian Trogides, which appears to 
me distinct from Trox and Liparochrus, and which I believe 
to be identical with Antiochrus, I regret to fina myself unable 
to write anything satisfactory about the species. The fol- 
lowing species are all, I have little doubt, members of this 
genus: — A. hrunneus, Shp., and Lji parochrun obJongus, Har., 
aberrans, Fairm., and politulus, Macl. As stated above, Har- 
old has identified the first two of these names as representing 
a single species. The only one of them named in my collec- 
tion is A. politulus, Macl., my example of which has been 
compared with the type. It appears to be distinct from 
