OF NEW ZEALAND. 1305 



OBS. Dr. Sharp, when establishing this genus, did not describe 

 any species. It was intended for the reception of species formerly 

 referred to Colaspis by himself (C. puncticolUs) , by White, and by 

 me. The amended list of this genus will now stand as follows : 



E. ochracea, Broun. E. subsenea, Broun. 



E. colorata, E. sculpta, 



E. montana, E. mera, 



E. brunnea, Fabr. E. brevicollis, 



E. pallidipeunis, White. E. atrocerulea, 



E. puncticollis, Sharp, MS. E. huttoni, 



E. jucunda, Broun. 



Atrichatus. 



Nov. gen. 

 (Sharp ; Trans. Roy. Dub. Soc., Nov., 1886.) 



Corpus oblongum, absque pubescentia ; prothoraci anguli poste- 

 riores liberi ; coxae posteriores magis quam anteriores et intermediae 

 distantes. 



This is another form closely allied to Eucolaspis, but appearing 

 to me entitled to generic distinction. The anterior and middle coxce 

 are but little more separated than they are in Eucolaspis, but the 

 posterior are more widely distant. Although very different in form 

 from Peniticus, Atrichatus is as near to it as to Colaspis, but the 

 front coxae are not so widely separated, and the metasternum is not 

 so extremely abbreviated. Atrichatus has the antennae very widely 

 separated, and the tibia broader at the extremity, and excavate 

 externally ; the front coxae are very near the margin of the pro- 

 sternum, though not so excessively close as they are in Eucolaspis. 

 The claivs are appendiculate. 



The insect which I take for the type of this genus was found at 

 Christchurch by Wakefield. I do not describe it, as I think it may 

 probably be the Colaspis ochraceus of Broun. 



OBS. No. 1099 now becomes Atrichatus ochraceus. T. B. 



Pilacolaspis. 



Nov. gen. 

 (Sharp; Trans. Eoy. Dub. Soc., Nov., 1886.) 



Corpus oblongum, subtiliter pubescens ; coxae anteriores et inter- 

 mediae satis, posteriores magis, distantes, anteriores bene pone 

 prosterni margin em anteriorem sitae. 



This is allied to Eucolaspis, but presents too many points of dis- 

 tinction to be treated as a mere extension thereof. The hind coxae 

 considerably more widely separated, and the position of the front 

 coxae, added to the pubescent surface, being the most important 

 points of distinction. The other characters are apparently similar 

 to those of Eucolaspis, except that I cannot detect any lobes or 

 appendage on the claws ; it is just possible, however, that I may be 

 in error on this point, as the only example I have seen is in bad 

 condition, and much mutilated. 



