211 



duplo, punctulatis ; subtus sterno dense longe villoso, 

 abdomine breviter pubescenti 



Maris flabello 8-articulato. Long. 12 1. Lat. 6 1. 



The resemblance of tbis insect to JR. heteroflactyla, Germ., is 

 Tery striking indeed. Placed beside tbat species it is some- 

 what wider and less elongate, with tbe thorax decidedly though 

 slightly (in heterodactyla it is hardly') lobed behind, its margins 

 a trifle less strongly crenulate (perhaps only an individual 

 aberration), and its surface distinctly less finely and closely 

 punctured. There does not appear to be any tangible differ- 

 ence in the sculpture of the elytra or pygidiun.], or in the 

 structure of the legs. The antennae are quite different ; the 

 basal joint is elongate piriform, the second very small, the 

 third not much shorter than the first but prolonged internally 

 at the apex into an elongate lamina not much shorter than 

 each of the following seven joints, which with it form an 

 arched club not much shorter than the anterior tibia. 



There is a single specimen in the South Australian Museum 

 marked as having been taken in South Australia. 



jN'.B. — The South Australian Museum possesses also a speci- 

 men which I cannot doubt is the female of this species. It 

 has the clypeus evenly rounded in front, the thorax more 

 narrowly and distinctly lobed behind, and the antennal club 

 smaller and only six- jointed, the basal two joints as in the 

 male, the third longer than the first and cylindric, the fourth 

 feebly spined on the inner side. The apical ventral segment is 

 very much shorter than in the male. The tarsi do not differ 

 noticeably from those of the male, the hindmost pair in both 

 .sexes being scarcely shorter than their tibiae. 



HOLOPHTLLA {Mrichseii) . 

 This genus is so uncertainly characterised that there is a 

 risk in attributing any species to it. It originally appeared in 

 the " Ins. Deutsch." merely in a tabulation of tbe " Tanyproc- 

 tini " with a note of three lines attached, mentioning two or 

 three characters and stating that it was from JSTew Holland. 

 From its place in the tabulation it would appear that it has 

 the abdominal segmental sutures not soldered together and 

 only a single tooth on the claws. Dr. Burmeister (Handb. 

 der Ent.) characterises the genus mucb more fully, but states 

 that Erichsen was mistaken in saying that the abdominal 

 sutures are not soldered together, and also (without remark on 

 the discrepancy) attributes two teeth to its claws. Dr. Bur- 

 meister, however, does not compare Holopliylla with Bliopcea, 

 which from the description it must resemble very closely. In- 

 deed, I cannot from the description discover any tangible dis- 

 tinction mentioned except that the joints of the palpi in the 



