282 



elytron bears 17 rows of strong well-defined punctures, which 

 are a little confused near the scutelluui and become faint near 

 the apex (the fifth row contains rather more than 40 punctures 

 which retain their distinct seriate order almost to the extreme 

 apex) ; the interstices are flat, or A^ery nearly so ; the explanate 

 margin is as wide at the extreme base as that of the prothorax, 

 but immediately is very much contracted ; it is then very 

 gradiiallif, but not very evenly, contracted half w^ay to the apex 

 and from that point runs evenly without more contraction, and 

 about one-third as wide as the explanate margin of the pro- 

 thorax, to the end. The curve of the prosternum is not quite 

 continuous, owing to the hinder end (behind the coxse) being 

 not so much sloping down as it would have to be to continue 

 the curve evenly. 

 Streaky Bay. 



HYPAULAX. 



H. orcus, Pasc. I have specimens that appear undoubtedly 

 to belong to this species (hitherto recorded only from AYestern 

 Australia) which were taken at Eowler's Bay and Wallaroo. 



TE^^EBEIO. 



T. Australls, Boisd. The description of this insect consists 

 of eleven words, and might apply to a considerable number of 

 Tenehrionidce, M. Blessig in 1861 re-described it in a Eussian 

 scientific paper. He does not state on what grounds he con- 

 sidered his insect identical with Dr. Boisduval's, but as there 

 is no improbability in its being so, and as he furnishes a very 

 good description, his correctness should be assumed in the 

 absence of evidence to the contrary. As he says, the species 

 he describes (like others Boisduval attributed to the genus) is 

 certainly not a true Tenehrio. It appears, however, to belong 

 to the allied genus 3[eneristes, very briefly characterised by 

 Mr. Pascoe in the Annals of Nat. Hist., 1869, and is, I think, 

 jDrobably the species he names M. laticoJIis, Boisd. — at least I 

 have the following reason for thinking so : — Mr. Pascoe states 

 that his description is founded on a specimen received from 

 Dr. Howitt (of Melbourne) as JBarysceJis laticolUs, Boisd. 

 IN'ow, I have in my own collection a specimen bearing that 

 name on the same authority, which is certainly the species M. 

 Blessig describes as Tenehrio Australis, Boisd. Singularly- 

 enough Mr. Pascoe states that there is a specimen of the same 

 insect in the British Museum labelled Tenehrio Australis, 

 McLeay (under which name Boisduval described the insect 

 that is known as T. Australis, Boisd.). It seems probable that 

 the explanation of this tangle is to be found in the identity of 

 T. Australis, Boisd., and B. JaticoUis, Boisd., the descriptions 



