and immediately before and behind the black elytral patch. Th® 

 general pubescence of the head and pronotum is evidently 

 darker than that of the elytra. This species differs entirely from 

 its previously described congeners in colors and pattern (in these 

 respects it is remarkably like Ophthahnorychus angustus, Blackb.). 

 It differs structurally from E. parva, Blackb., inter alia by its 

 prothorax distinctly (though not strongly) tubuliform in front, 

 its elytra less produced at the apex, its much denser pubescence, 

 and the manifestly subcostiform appearance of some of its 

 elytral interstices. 



Victoria (Dividing Range). 



MANDALOTUS. 



M. crudus, Er. This species is very well described by its 

 author and there is little which an inspection of the type calls 

 for by way of addition, although a considerable number of con- 

 generic species have since been described. It is at once dis- 

 tinguishable from all the Mandaloti known to me (andj I think, 

 from the few I do not know) by the sculpture of its elytra which 

 (owing to the presence of numerous obtuse feebly elevated ridges 

 forming a kind of reticulation) presents an areolate appear- 

 ance somewhat suggestive of the elytral sculpture of the 

 Colydiid Meryx areolata, Pasc, — though the areolation is less 

 sharply defined than in that insect. The type is a male, the 

 mesosternal projection being very decidedly of the form of a 

 blunt spine (as described by Ertchson) and therefore very 

 different from that of M. hoplostethas (also from Tasmania). To 

 Erichson's description of the hind tibiae it should be added that 

 at the middle of the inner margin (immediately before the com- 

 mencement of the curvature of the outline) there is a strong 

 transverse carina which from some points of view looks like a 

 prominent tooth. 



21. rigidus, Er. This is certainly the female of 31. crudus. It 

 has exactly similar elytral sculpture, but differs in being some- 

 what wider and more robust in form, with the mesosternal spine 

 replaced by a feeble tubercle and the tibia presenting the differ- 

 ences that usually distinguish those of female Mandaloti from 

 their males. 



M. sterilis, Er. The type of this species is probably a male, 

 but with very feeble sexual characters. I should say that it is 

 identical with 31. {Dysostines) fidigineus, Pasc. (judging by the 

 description of that insect). It is distinguishable from all the 

 other JIandaloti known to me by its narrow elongate form. The 

 carination of the alternate interstices of its elytra is well 

 defined, — the white spot at the base of the third interstice (men- 

 tioned by Erichson) very indistinct. The mesosternum and tibise 



