2Q Mr. G. J. Arrow on 



although its proper systematic position must remain in doubt, 

 enough can be stated for its ready recognition. 



Mascarena, gen. nov. 



Elongate and rather depressed in shape. Head broad, 

 with the clypeus extremely short and subacuminate in the 

 middle. Labrum broad, produced vertically downwards on 

 each side, the two lobes long and wide apart, the median part 

 slightly produced. Mandibles strong and exposed. Mentum 

 excavated externally, deeply excised in front, with the palpi 

 attached to the outer face. Third and fourth joints of the 

 antenna equal and moderately short (the remainder wanting). 

 Legs slender, with the front tibia rather feebly tridentate 

 and the claws long, toothed before the middle. 



The tarsi of the male are very long, the claws longer than 

 in the female and the tooth much shorter. 



The second species from Rodriguez referred by Waterhouse 

 to Lachnosterna (L. gradaria, Wat.) belongs to the genus 

 Iloplochelus. This genus is at present in a state of great 

 confusion. Empecta and Hoplochelus, very distinct as they 

 are, were mixed together by Blanchard, and, although Brenske 

 lias partly unravelled them, the recent Catalogue of Dalla 

 Torre has only increased the confusion. The two genera are 

 easily distinguishable by the different form of the clypeus 

 and labrum and the occurrence of two teeth upon the front 

 tibia in Empecta, instead of three as in Hoplochelus. The 

 former genus is allied to Apogonia and the latter to Rhizo- 

 iroqiis. The typical species of Hoplochelus is H. rhizo- 

 troqoides, Bl., and the others known to me are piligera, BL, 

 micantipennis, BL, semirufus, Fairm., and gradaria, Wat. 

 " Enaria" adusta and albosparsa, of Fairmaire, belong to 

 Empecta. 



Fairmaire has described as Empecta nudiplaga a form 

 which he distinguishes from E. marginalis, Fairm., by certain 

 features, all of which, although he was not aware of it, are 

 merely characters of the female of Hoplochelus micantipennis, 

 BL Both the above names are therefore evidently syno- 

 nyms of the last. Empecta betanimena, Kunck., attributed 

 to this species in Alluaud's Catalogue, is really Hoplochelus 

 semirufus , Fairm. 



Much of this confusion would have been avoided by the 

 simple observation of the features distinctive of the sexes. 

 It appears never to have been noticed that a sparser clothing 



