295 



mentioned. I am doubtful as to the sex of my unique example 

 of suhmuticus, but as the exLernal teeth of the front tibiae are 

 fairly strong and the clypeal suture is distinctly carinate I deem 

 it probably a female. 



N. Queensland. 



O. muticusj Macl. This species together with inermis, Macl., 

 and suhmuticus, Blackb., form a small group closely allied inter 

 se and without any other close allies so far as I know. Their 

 surface is black, decidedly (or very) nitid, the pronotum without 

 any trace of basal margin and not (or excessively finely) punc- 

 tulate, the head without frontal carina (but slightly prominent 

 close to the inner margin of the eyes) and with the clypeal suture 

 non-carinate (male) or slightly carinate (female), the front tibise 

 about the same length in the sexes but more strongly toothed 

 externally in the female than in the male, the clypeus not (or 

 scarcely) sinuate in front. I am not sure that I know both sexes 

 of any member of the group except muticus, but I do not feel 

 any doubt of the sexes unknown to me confirming the above 

 information. I think I know only the male of inermis and the 

 female of suhmuticus, and it is perhaps just possible that 

 suhmuticus may be the female of inerm>is, but I think it most 

 unlikely, owing to the very much more strongly rounded sides of 

 the prothorax in the former. In muticus the female pronotum 

 and elytra are just perceptibly punctulate (those of the male not 

 perceptibly) but there is no such difference as there would be in 

 this respect between the male and female of inermis if my 

 suhmuticus were the female of that species. The metasternum 

 of the species that I identify with muticus is closely and finely 

 punctulate. 



0. inermis, Macl. The only specimen I have seen that I can 

 refer to this species is in the collection of Mr, Lea. It is evi- 

 dently a male. It agrees with Macleay's very brief description ; 

 and also with his note of difference from muticus, Macl., in being 

 "smaller, more brilliant, smoother on the thorax and more 

 deeply striated on the elytra." It also differs from the insect 

 mentioned above as muticus in having the puncturation of its 

 metasternum sparse and strong, — a character not mentioned by 

 its author, 



O. Comperei, sp. nov. Sat latus ; supra glaber; subtus sparsim 

 fuivo-hirtus ; minus nitidus, subtiliter coriaceus ; niger, 

 tarsis palpis antennisque (harum clava testacea) ferrugineis ; 

 clypeo antice emarginato, sutura clypeali sat fortiter 

 carinata; carina frontali fere nulla, capite inter oculos 

 utrinque tuberculo sat magno armato, inter carinas sub- 

 grosse nee profunde punctato ; oculis minus angustis, sat 

 convexis, perspicue sat obsolete granulatis ; prothorace quam 



