65 
Victoria; taken by C. French, Esq., ‘from a wattle near 
Lillydale. 
MAULIA (gen. nov.). 
Caput sat breve, genis antice dentiformibus, fronte lata minus 
concava; oculi sat tenuiter granulati, lobo superiori sat: 
parvo ; tuberculi antennaril subobsoleti ; antenne robust, 
sat breves ; prothorax supra sat inequalis, ad latera tuber- 
culatus; elytra sat parallela abdomen tegentia; pedes minus 
elongati, femoribus leviter clavatis, tarsis sat latis; coxe 
antice globose minus approximatz, postice apertze ; cox 
intermediz ad latera clause ; segmentum ventrale basale 
quam cetera modice longius ; unguiculi divaricati. . 
The intermediate trochantins are very conspicuous, transversly 
placed, and transversely intersected by a strong sulcus. 
IT am at a loss to suggest any group of Longicornes in which 
this genus can be placed satisfactorily. 
The structure of the intermediate coxe and parts adjacent 
thereto is decidedly suggestive of Phalota, but the facies and 
many characters are quite inconsistent with such an alliance. 
The general appearance is much like that of Pempsamacra 
dispersa, Newm., in miniature, with which there is agreement in 
many characters including the tooth-like prominence of the apex 
of the cheeks, but in Pempsamacra the intermediate coxe are 
widely open laterally. Menenia, Pasc., is a genus which its 
author has been unable to place in any named “ tribe,” though 
considering it nearest to Phalota, and these particulars seem to 
suggest a probable relationship to the present insect; I think I 
know Nenenia, and in that case there does not seem to be much 
real affinity, but. even if I am wrong in my identification the 
““fronte excavato” and “abdominis segmenta longitudine equalia,” 
of that species are quite conclusive as to its generic distinctness 
from that which I have characterised above. On the whole I 
think this genus cannot stand far away from Pempsamacra. 
Compared with Pempsamacra dispersa (and apart from size) 
the head of this insect is less produced in front, but is very 
similar in respect of its slight concavity and width between the. 
antenne, and in the structure of its antenuz (except in the apical 
six joints being less abbreviated) ; its prothorax is considerably 
shorter, with much stronger and sharper lateral tubercles ; and 
its elytra are scarcely so much narrowed hindward. 
I believe I am right in considering that the intermediate coxee 
are closed externally ; it is very difficult, however, in the case of 
a small Longicorn, with the sternal sutures much obscured 
by rugulosity to be quite sure without the removal of the meso- 
thoracic epimeron whether the angle of the metasternum abso- 
lutely touches that of the prothoracic episternum. 
7 
