101 



sparsim sat obsolete (postice gradatim magis perspicue, 

 prope apicem nullo modo obsolete) subtiliter punctulatis, 

 stria subsuturali profande impressa antice extrorsum versa 

 et sat longe continua. Long., f 1.; lat., I 1. (vix). 



The structural characters have been indicated under the 

 heading of the genus. The facies is much like that of Scaphisoma 

 but the body is more narrowed hindward from slightly behind 

 the front of the elytra than in any Scaphisoma known to me. 



Victoria ; Dividing Range. In a fungus deeply imbedded in a 

 hollow log. 



HISTERID^. 



HOLOLEPTA. 



H. australica. Mars. T presume that this is the species 

 referred to by Mr. Lea (P.L S., N.S.W., 1897, p. 585) under the 

 name H. ^^ aastralis, Mars." By some oversight the name was 

 printed australis in Masters' catalogue, from which apparently 

 Mr. Lea adopted it ; but de Marseul does not appear to have 

 described any Hololepta under the name australis. 



TRYPAN^US. 



This genus is attributed to Australia in Masters' Catalogue, a 

 species "Somerseti, Mars., Ann. Mus. (J-en., 1879, p. 281", being 

 quoted. On reference to the memoir cited I find that on p. 281 

 there is a Teretrius Somerseti, which is unquestionably a 

 Teretriosoma, nor can I find any Trypanceus Somerseti in the 

 memoir. The genus Trypanmus^ therefore, appears to have been 

 erroneously attributed to Australia. 



PAROMALUS. 



I am afraid it is almost impossible to identify with any 

 certainty the four Australian species of this genus described by 

 De Marseul without a comparison of specimens with the actual 

 types. I have received from Mr. Lea examples bearing the 

 names of three of them, and I believe that gentleman has been 

 in correspondence with Mr. Lewis, and has received information 

 from him regarding nomenclature. It is, therefore, likely that 

 the specimens sent me were named by Mr. Lea by comparison 

 with specimens named by Lewis. As, however, they do not 

 agree with De Marseul's descriptions, and two of them are from 

 localities widely separated from those of De Marseul's types 

 (while of the third De Marseul does not seem to have known the 

 habitat exactly), I cannot consider the identification conclusive. 

 I, however, must accept the names provisionally, as there is a 

 possibility that they may have been ascertained definitely by 

 Lewis to agree with the types i» spite of divergence from the 



