5A 
section of the genus (as I have roughly and artificially tabulated 
it) to which cyanipes, Saund., and numerous other species 
belong ; cyanipes is very variable in markings, and one of its 
varieties (not that figured by Mr. Saunders) scarcely differs from 
the present insect in markings, except in the hinder red mark 
being less produced hindward on the margin, so that the hinder 
dark mark has a nearly straight edge in front reaching from 
margin to margin; whereas in 8. Jongula this dark mark appears 
as a subquadrate spot, placed and shaped much as in 8. crwenta, 
L. & G. (as figured by Saunders, Tr. Ent. Soc., 1868, t. 2, fig. 
21). But this insect is very unlike S. cyanzpes in other respects, 
and recalls to mind, I think, very differently-coloured species (e.g., 
S. cruenta) by its shape, while it stands almost, if not quite, alone 
in its prothorax being at the widest (to the eye considerably, and 
by measurement a little) in front of the middle of the median 
line, while at the same time the prothorax is much wider at this 
point than at the base ; the prothorax of 8. sanguinea, Saund., 
approaches somewhat to this form, but besides having its sides 
less converging hindward, it has not the thickened lateral 
margins separated from the disc by a sulcus. 
Victoria ; in the collection of C. French, Esq. 
EKUCNEMID. 
DYSCOLOCERUS. 
I have some hesitation in referring the following species to this 
genus. M. de Bonvouloir, in his monograph of the Hucnemides, 
attaches great importance to the relative length of the joints of 
the antenne, and notes Dyscolocerus as very remarkable on 
account of joints 4-8 of the antenne being very short and trans- 
verse, hardly longer together than the ninth. In the present 
insect joints 4-8 are strongly transverse (joint 4 a little longer 
and less transverse than the following) and are together distinctly 
shorter than joint 9; joint 10 is distinctly, though not much, 
shorter than 9, and 11 is the longest joint of the antenne, being 
nearly half again as long as 10. In Dyscolocerus the apical joint 
is much smaller than the tenth. I think it not unlikely that 
M. de Bonvouloir would consider this sutticient difference to call 
for anew generic name, but as the general characters seem in 
other respects to agree with Dyscolocerus, and the species seems 
considerably to resemble the unique species ascribed to 
Dyscolocerus, there seems no great objection to place it pro- 
visionally in that genus. It agrees with Dyscolocerus in the form 
of its posterior coxe (prolonged over the base of the femora and 
beginning to narrow outward much nearer to their inner than 
their external extremity), the absence of tarsal sulci on the 
