of the Group Cerambycinoe. 253 



3. JEoJesthes Marice. 



Pachydisstts Maritp, Thorns. Kov. Zuol. 1878, p. 2. 



This is very like the jirccedinL:;, but may be disfinguislied 

 by its greater size, the absence of longitudinal impressions 

 from the pronotuni, and the nearly smooth sca])c of the 

 antennae. In this, as in the last species, the median carina of 

 the vertex loses its characteristic form, for, instead of being 

 narrow, it is broad and flat and very little elevated ; this 

 character by itself is almost sufficient to distinguish either 

 from aurifaberj in which the carina is sharp and well defined. 



4. JEolesthes ampliata, sp. n. 



Robusta : prothorace supra irregulariter fortitcrque rugoso, spatio 

 medio sulcis duobus obli<]uis limitato ; elytris apicc quadrispinosis ; 

 capite subtus sulco inter geuas recto vel leviter bisiuuato. 



Long. J 36, lat. 11 mm. 



ITab. Duke of York Island. 



In colour and style of pubescence resembles most indutay 

 Newm., and te.ctor, Pasc, but is broader, has the apices of 

 the elytra distinctly spined at each of the angles, and has the 

 intergenal groove of the underside of the head straight or at 

 most very feebly bisinuate. This is the species recorded 

 from the Duke of York Island by Mr. Bates under the name 

 KeoceramJjyx aurifaher. White. 



A single female in the British Museum collection ; males 

 and females in the collections of Messrs. Bates and Fry. 



5. ^olesthes indiita, Newm. 



Hammatichems indutus, Newm. 

 ? Ceravibyx holosericeiis, Fabr. 



This species occurs in Siam, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, tlic 

 Philippine Islands, &c. I have found a small specimen in 

 Dejean's collection ticketed Ilammaticherus holosericeus^ Oliv. 

 But the Ceramhyx hohsericeus of Olivier is a very different 

 species and belongs to another genus in this group. 



6. ^olesthes textor. 



Neoceramby.v textor, Pasc. 



Neoceramhyx extenius, Pasc. 



? Pachydissus tei-natensis, Fairm. Le Natm-aliste, 1879, p. 70. 



I am doubtful if this species can be regarded as distinct 

 from induta. The differences between them are slight, and 

 with a larger series might easily break down. M. Fair- 



