105 



rarely wanting. So far as I can judge it. is never present, in 

 pncijica or longiplaya. In Pr. L.S., N.S.W. {loc. cit.), I ex- 

 pressed doubt as to the validity of this species but the further 

 examination of additional specimens has dispelled my doubts. 

 Its male has front tarsi only feebly dilated and only two seti- 

 gerous punctures on the apical ventral segment. 



ECTROMA. 



In Pr. LS., N.S.W., 1889, p. 710, I proposed this name for 

 certain species allied to Sarofhrocrepis which the Baron de 

 Chaudoir had stated were in his opinion distinct from that 

 genus. I regard Dromius civica as the type of Eciroma and it 

 was on that insect that the characters distinguishing Ectroma 

 from Sarothrocrepis were specified. I am not sure that the three 

 olher species which de Chaudoir considered congeneric with 

 civica are really so, nor am I certain that I know them all (two 

 at least of them are quit** insufficiently described). If I am 

 right in my identification of them — and I think I can hardly be 

 mistaken in one at least ( Lebia henefica^ Newm.) — their sexual 

 characters are slightly different (the intermediate tarsi in the 

 male being feebly dilated) but they agree with D. civica, 

 Newm , in what I regard as the essential distinction of Ectroma 

 from Sarothrocrepis — viz., the form of the apical joint of the 

 labial palpi, which is in Sarothrocrepis compressed and at the 

 apex wide and truncate, while in Ectroma it is more slender and 

 at the apex attenuate (though very narrowly truncate at the ex- 

 treme apex). There are a number of Australian species in my 

 opinion best placed at present in Ectroma which differ a little 

 inter se in respect of structural characters and which may 

 possibly call for the creation of several new generic names 

 eventually. Their structural differences consist chiefly in sexual 

 characters and in the form of the fourth joint of the tarsi. In 

 most of them the fourth joint of the tarsi is (as in civicuvi, 

 Newm.) bilobed on all the tarsi; in one species (described below) 

 the fourth joint is alike on all the tarsi but is not actually bilobed 

 (it is dilated and the claw joint is inserted on the upper surface 

 near the base, but the apex viewed from beneath is not or but 

 slightly emarginate) ; in two other species (described below) the 

 fourth joint of the front and middle tarsi is bilobed while that 

 of the hind tarsi is simple. The following are the leading 

 characters which I regard as in combination distinguishing 

 Ectroma from allied e;enera : — The fourth joint of at least the 

 front and middle tarsi dilated and having the fifth joint inserted 

 near its base (its apex not, or more or less strongly, emarginate),. 

 claws pectinate, upper surface of tarsi not setose, base of 

 antennae not far distant from the eyes, apical joint of labial 

 palpi more or less slender and towards its apex attenuate, body 

 not pubescent. 



