On new Genera and 8p>ecies of Tenebrionidae. 29 



which the young RMnops lay with its head close to the con- 

 tractile vesicle, and its foot close under the mastax. 



My specimens average -£$ inch in length, and have been 

 living in captivity for upwards of a week. 



X. — Descriptions of new Genera and Species of Tenebrio- 

 nidas from Australia and Tasmania. By Francis P. 

 Pascoe, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c, Honorary Member of the 

 Natural History Society of Natal. 



[Plate X.] 



Dr. Howitt, of Melbourne, having recently sent me a large 

 collection of Heteromera from Australasia and New Zealand, I 

 propose to describe in this Magazine such of the new Australian 

 species as belong to the family Tenebrionidee, adding several 

 more derived from other sources, leaving the remainder and 

 those from New Zealand for a future opportunity. 



The Tenebrionida?* belong preeminently to the hot and dry 

 regions of the earth ; the epigeous or more normal forms are 

 found in very small numbers, either in the humid lands of the 

 tropics or in the northern parts of the northern hemisphere. 

 England contains only seventeen (or, with the doubtful and 

 introduced, twenty-seven) species, while the countries sur- 

 rounding the Mediterranean have, according toM.de Marseul's 

 Catalogue, 1327 species. From Australia and Tasmania we 

 have about 210 described — a number probably far below that 

 contained in the rich collections of Melbourne and Sydney, 

 and which we cannot doubt will be still greatly increased as 

 those countries are more explored. The lists which Dr. Howitt 

 has favoured me with from time to time bear evidence of the 

 narrow limits in which a large number of species are localized. 



There is some confusion in regard to the use of the terms 

 for those parts of the elytra known as the "epipleura" and 

 the " epipleural fold"f ? which it is necessary to notice : when 



* In the "sense in which it is constituted by M. Lacordaire (Gen. des 

 Coleopt. t. v.). The great advantage of having a standard which is in 

 everybody's hands appears to me to render it desirable to conform as 

 closely as possible to the classification and to the principles of analysis 

 applied to the characters of the various divisions of the family. Only, for 

 the sake of greater simplicity, I have called his " tribus " and " groupes " 

 (the latter often of equal rank with the former) subfamilies. The " sec- 

 tions " and " cohorts," being merely designations of the primary branches 

 of a dichotomous arrangement, do not themselves form natural divisions. 



t " Repli epipleural" of M. Lacordaire. "Fold" is a bad rendering of 

 ic repM" but I know of none better. Dr. Leconte does not appear to no- 

 tice this part. 



