229 
tinguished by its hind legs resembling those of a Ha/tica (at any 
rate in one sex) with two large teeth on either side of the under- 
side of the femora near their apex. 
H. mira, sp. nov. Elongata; sat parallela; rufa, antennis palpis 
femorum apice tibiis tarsisque nigris; capite prothoraceque 
subtiliter minus sparsim punctulato ; hoc quam longiori plus 
quam dimidio latiori, postice truncato antice emarginato, 
lateribus sinuatis, disco utrinque (exempli typici) late obscure 
impresso ; elytris obscure sat crebre rugulosis, obsolete 
4-costatis, apice late rotundatis. Long., 81.; lat., 241. 
The elytra are of very thin texture, and have dried (in the 
typical example) in a more or less distorted condition, but they 
are as long as the hind body, and are wide enough at the apex to 
cover the same ; probably, however, their normal condition is to 
be somewhat open. 
Queensland; Cape York; in the collection of C. French, Esq. 
CURCULIONIDA. 
MANDALOTUOUS. 
This genus founded by Erichson in 1842, and of which he 
described no less than four species—all from Tasmania—seems to 
have been a difficulty to subsequent authors. Schénherr does not 
appear to have expressed any opinion about it; Lacordaire places 
it among a group of genera which he thought might appertain 
to the Hremnides, but of which he had never seen a type ; Pascoe 
expresses no opinion, but merely remarks that he has never seen 
Mandalotus. 
Starting from the consideration that it is extremely unlikely 
Erichson had four congeneric species from Tasmania which no 
one has since seen, I have recently been examining the Tasmanian 
Curculionide (of which there are a considerable number) in my 
collection, to endeavour to identify Mdandalotus, and I feel no 
doubt I have succeeded, and that it is identical with the genus 
which Pascoe has since named Dysostines. A Dysostines from 
Tasmania, in my collection, agrees perfectly well with Erichson’s 
generic characters for Mandalotus, and is not improbably the 
species Hrichson calls sterzlis, though on this latter point I feel 
some doubt. Dysostines presents every character that Hrichson 
attributed to Mandalotus, and the diagnosis is a very full one, 
although, as might be expected in a diagnosis published before 
Schonherr’s work, two of the characters of chief classificatory 
value (viz., the visibility of the maxille and the non-contiguity of 
the front coxze) are passed over in silence. I think, therefore, 
that the name Dysostines must be treated as a synonym of 
Mandalotus, and that Mandalotus must be removed from the 
