28 



I suspect it is C. ruJicolUs, Macl., but unfortunately there is a 

 discrepancy between the 12 words of Latin and the 33 of English 

 of which the description consists, as the Latin makes the elytra 

 testaceous and the English implies that they are black (at least 

 in the male). However, the specimens before me include elytra 

 entirely black, entirely testaceous, and black with various testace- 

 ous blotches. There are no differences among Sir W. Macleay's 

 descriptions of C. ruflcollis, pallida, lurida, and atra except in 

 respect of color and slight distinctions in size. C. pygmoia is 

 probably a distinct species which I have not seen, and 

 aphodioides may be distinct, as Sir W. Macleay says that the 

 front tibiae of the male are more slender than in its allies. 



EPHOLCIS. 



This genus bearing much superficial resemblance to Mcechidms 

 has entirely the Sericid relation between clypeus and labrum. 

 Mr. C. O. Waterhouse in founding it expressed the opinion that it is 

 intermediate between Diphucephala and Mcechidius. Its coloring 

 and the character of its sculpture as well as the presence of appen- 

 dages at the base of the claws are certainly suggestive of the latter, 

 though it is to be noted that the claw appendages are not really 

 characteristic of Mcechidius, being absent in many species, and 

 an analogous structure being found in an isolated species 

 {Nosphisthis) described below. But the structure of the head is 

 totally different from that of Mcechidius and if it were to be 

 regarded as allied to that genus rather than Diphucephala it 

 would upset the validity of Sericides and Sericoides as distinct 

 sub-tribes. I have little doubt that it is a flower-frequenting 

 genus. Mcechidius Albertisi and bilobiceps of Fairemaire are 

 evidently referable to Epholcis. I suspect that the former is 

 identical with E. divergens, Waterh., in which case its name 

 must sink as a synonyn. 



I refer provisionally to this genus Mcechidius gracilis, Waterh. 

 which its author says is " very unlike all the others in that 

 genus." It appears to me impossible to consider it a Mcechidius 

 or even closely allied thereto, inasmuch as its prosternal sutures 

 are not open to receive its antennae and its mouth structure is of 

 the Sericid type, the front of its labium being almost in contact 

 with the apex of the clypeus without the intervention of a visible 

 labrum. Its facies is undoubtedly highly suggestive of 

 Mcechidius and very different from that of Epholcis, but never- 

 the-less I can find no character to separate it from the latter 

 genus which is not evidently merely specific in other genera, e.g. 

 Diphucephala and Mcechidius. The following is a new species 

 allied to E. (Mcechidius) gracilis. 



