128 



observe that the elytra including their sutural spines are closely 

 in contact with each other at the apex and might be regarded at 

 a casual glance as having three spines on the conjoined elytra (the 

 two sutural spines appearing as one). Although I must admit 

 that Hope's Latin diagnosis (the lateral spines being called 

 " 6m^ ") strictly implies six spines on the two elytra, I cannot 

 help thinking that Hope used the word " bini" instead of '■^duo" 

 carelessly and that his " trispinosa " refers to the fact that the 

 two conjoined elytra present the appearance of being (together) 

 trispinose. Otherwise it is certainly remarkable if in the one 

 locality there are two species agreeing in general characters that 

 render them particularly distinct among their allies of the same 

 family yet differing in the armature of their elytral apices. I 

 have both sexes of this insect before me. It is further to be 

 noted that this insect is not a true Dineuies but a Mncrogyrus 

 and is certainly, I think, 31. paradoxus; Regimb , of which M. 

 Regimbart remarks that in general appearance "it resembles a 

 Dineutes much more than a Macrogyrus.^^ Unless Hope's type 

 is in existence 1 do not see much prospect of the identity of 

 D. Gouldi bein^ conclusively determined. If some Coleopterist 

 in England could ascertain whether the type is in the Oxford 

 University Museum and if so send me a description or figure of 

 tho outline of the apical portion of its elytra and also report as to 

 whether the specimen has a distinct scutellum I should greatly 

 value the information. 



D. australis, Fab , and rufipes, Fab. I suspect that as far as 

 Australian specimens are concerned these names refer to but one 

 species, which is widely distributed in Central and Northern 

 Australia. I notice that D australis is attributod to the East 

 Indies as well as to Australia and it may well be that the two 

 species are distinct but that australis nevertheless has been in- 

 correctly quoted as Australian. Unfortunately 1 am not able to 

 refer to all the literature bearing upon the question, but the 

 descriptions before me (including those of Fabricius) seem to me 

 as if they mio^ht have been founded on only one species. I should 

 be very glad if anyone could throw any fresh light upon this 

 subject. 



PALPICORNES. 



HYDEOPHILUS. 



H. scisslpalpis, sp. nov. Modice latus, postice sat obtusus ; 

 nitidus ; piceo-niger, antennis palpisque testaceis, pedibus 

 anticis totis femoribus 4 posterioribus et abdominis maculis 

 lateralibus rufis, tarsis f ulvo-ciliatis ; prothorace brevi, cum 

 capite ut S. albipedis, Csist.,et S. latipalpi, Cast., punctulato, 

 lateribus leviter arcuatis, angulis posticis rotundatis, basi 

 utrinque latera versus rotundatim retrorsum dilatata ; 



