130 



D. Elytra! interstices distinctly punctulate ... fosswi, Nevvm. 

 DD. Elytral interstices scarcely visilily punc- 

 tulate ... . ... ... ignarus, Paso. 



CC. The third interstice of the elytra not carini- 

 form except near base and apex. 

 D. Quasi-front angles of prothorax well defined. 

 E. The sixth elytral interstice strongly carini- 



forni in part of its hind half ... ... cordicoUis, Blackb. 



EE. The sixth elytral interstice not cariniform. 

 F. Middle of region of elypeal suture deeply 



impressed ... ... ... popidaris, B\a.okh. 



FF. Surface of head quite evenly convex ... cqualiceps, Blackb. 

 DD. Quasi- front angles of prothorax quite 

 rounded off. 

 E, Head sparsely punctulate ... ... sjyarsiceps, Blsickh 



EE. Head c osely punctulate. 



F. 01 y pens even ... ... ... crlbriceps, Blackb. 



FF. Clypens longitudinally sulcate ... viduatuSj-VeiSC. 



AA. The sulcus of the prouotum vaguely defined and 



shallow ... ... ... ... ... Ericksoni. Newm. 



PYCNOMERUS. 



This genus is regarded by Dr. Sliarp as inseparable from 

 Fenthelispa, which Pascoe founded for species admittedly con- 

 generic with P. fuliginosus, Er. There is no need to discuss 

 here the correctness or otherwise of Dr. Sharp's pronouncement 

 inasmuch as Pascoe appears to be clearly in error in regarding 

 the European Gerylon terebrans as the type of Pycnomerus. 

 Under the diagnosis of Pycnomerus Erickson states that he 

 divides the genus into three sections the first of which consists 

 (he says) of species having eleven-jointed antennae, the second of 

 species having antennae ten-jointed, and the third eight-jointed; 

 and then follows the description of P. fuliginosa. This evidently 

 implies that the first section is to be treated as the typical one 

 and it is difficult to understand why Pascoe regarded the second 

 section as the typical one and proposed a new name for the first. 



P. poUtus, Lea. Mr. Lea has been good enough to send me 

 some specimens of this insect. An example of it from Queens- 

 land had been sent to me previously by M. Grouvelle as 

 P. secufus, Pasc. I am of opinion that M. Grouvelle's identifi- 

 cation is incorrect, for although Pascoe's description is much too 

 brief to allow of certainty I have a species from Victoria (Pascoe's 

 locality) w^hich agrees better with the description of secutus. Mr. 

 Lea's insect, however, seems to me to be probably the same 

 species that Mr. Olliff ("Insects of Lord Howe Island," p. 10) 

 mentions as occurring m Queensland and refers to P. longulus, 

 Shp., — a New Zealand insect. Unfortunately Olliff gives no 

 authority for his reference and very strong authority would be 

 required to establish its correctness. Dr. Sharp's description of 

 Jongulus (like Pascoe's of secutus) is too brief to be of much 

 value. This species therefore must be regarded as needing 



