Cnh',,ptHr(>Hx Fimnlii Cleridit?. 89 



r.VLENDYMA, Lac. 

 Tiipe C. r/n/icHsis, Cast. 

 Reiiiarkablc for the aliiiost al)S(;nt lamella' (if the tarsi. 



Eleale, Newman. 



'r//j)t' E. i:iri(li\s, Gueriii. 



Lacordaire lia.s pointed out that Spinola was in error in 

 a.ssigning simple claws to the tarsi, his character of their being 

 heteromeroiis is also i[uite misleading; (Mon. I. p. 279, 



Ch'llrirhinix). 



Perhaps the best character is the excavation of the terminal 

 joint of the antennae, termed by Lac. (Genera p. 462) "ini faux 

 article pen distinct." ElcdJe is a synthetic, tyju^, the same 

 structure of the (iidcmnt' being seen in Srrohif/nr ; while certain 

 species show alhnity to Trirhode^: (rjj. I('}>i<hi), the pronotum is 

 quite that of Calendyma. 



Eleah' (/.■<prra, Newm. = [ suspect, vivid i-^, (iuerin. 



Eleale pulclicr, JS'ewm. I have shewn above [^Metuhusis et 

 Zenith /cola] that M. Chevrolat is confused with regard to this 

 species. His notes, Rev. et Mag. 1874 p. 20. — Mem. 187G 

 p. o., cannot apply to Newman's insect which is a tyinciil Eleale. 



Ele/de hiinacidata, Spinola is, m my opinion, notwithstanding 

 (.'hev. note, Mem. [). o, (piite distinct from [iidchcr, Newm. 



Eleale scrohilatus, Spin. Mon. I. p. 15G [ficrohicvlata, G. and 

 H. Cat. 1745) is probably an Aidims ; Spinola, as not unusual, 

 gives a wrong reference to pi. 15 fig. 6. Fig. 4 is given as 

 foveolatus Newm., and this is no doubt the insect described, and 

 is not an Eleale. 



Eleale sirmdans, I'ascoe, (r. and H. loc. cit., is a \'ai'iety of 

 lepida, Pascoe without doulit. 



Eleale u2) d aides, l^ascoe, J}L\m. and Mag. N. H. 1876 Vol. xvii. 

 p. 51 ; the genus is, as JNlr. Pascoe observes, doubtful, but it has 

 no affinities here. It is, in fact, as I suspect most New Zealand 

 Clerida' will ])rove to be, a new genus. 



Eleale lavata, Chev. Pev. et Mag. 1874 p. 20 - simplex, 

 Newm. ^ ., Chev. Mem. 1876 p. 22. 



H. 



