D5 
NOCAR. 
NV. debilis, Blackb. This species is identical with Cistela 
depresstuscula, Macl., an example of which I have to thank Mr. 
Mr. Masters for. As mine is the more recent name it must sink 
and the insect must be known as Nocar depressiusculus, Macl. 
(EDEMERID. 
ANANCA., 
This genus is already a receptacle for widely different forms 
and is only waiting its time to undergo a revision which will 
probably involve the removal from it of all the Australian species 
attributed to it. Mr. Champion of the London Entomological 
Society (who ranks high among the specialists of our day on the 
Heteromera and to whom I am indebted for much valuable assis- 
tance in working on the family) has the Australian Wdemeride at 
present in hand, and I understand is about dealing with them in 
a memoir which I anticipate with the deepest interest. Under 
these circumstances it would be out of the question even if I felt 
competent for the task for me to meddle with it. In the Zietz 
collection, however, there is a species of @demeride which it 
seems very inconvenient to omit in my present work of describing 
the new species of that collection and as it seems quite safe to 
assume that the species in question is not among those in Mr. 
Champion’s hands I venture to subjoin a description of it. In 
describing it the only existing genus to which it can be provision- 
ally referred is Ananca. It certainly has much resemblance to 
some of the Australian species that bear the name Ananca but I 
doubt whether it will stand permanently as really congeneric 
with any of them. Its very much smaller size at once suggests 
wide departure from such species as Wdemera puncta, W. S. 
Macleay, @. australis, Boisd., Nacerdes nigronotata, Bohem., 
which may be regarded as fair types of the Australian insects 
that have been attributed to dnanca. These latter species how- 
ever differ much inter se in the structure of their palpi and tarsi, 
—so much indeed that the three I have named may possibly be 
held to represent three distinct genera. The species I describe 
below could not, in that case, be associated with any of those 
three. Of them I think nigronotata, Boh., is the one it comes 
nearest to but it differs from it in notable characters, especially 
in its much shorter muzzle, in its smaller and much more slender 
tarsi, in its shorter maxillary palpi the apical joint of which is less 
securiform, in its shorter legs, and in its prothorax not much 
narrower than its elytra. Its eyes are much like those of 
nigronotata and its front tibiz have two apical spines. 
A, Zietzi, sp. nov. Testaceo-fusca, sternis abdomineque nigri- 
