from St. Helena. 211 



6. Microxylobius terebrans, Woll. 

 Microxylobius terebrans, Woll., Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (1861). 



7. Microxylobius Chevrolatii, Woll. 

 Microxylobius Chevrolatii, Woll., Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (1861). 



8. Microxylobius conicollis, Woll. 

 Microxylobius conicollis, Woll., Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (1861). 



Genus Nesiotes, now gen. (PI. XIV. fig. 3.) 



Corpus fere ut in Microxylobio, sed dense squamosum, ovatum, genus 

 Acalles (Cryptorkynchidum) omnino simulans, supra et infra grosse 

 alutaceum (nee aliter sculpturatum), rostro apiceque ipso abdominis 

 inferiore solis lsevioribus et punctatis ; rostro longiore graciliore, necnon 

 ad basin (mox ante ocidos) subito transversim constricto, quasi (prima 

 facie) ibidem articulato ; scrobe infra oculos desinente, et cast, ut in 

 genere prtecedenti, sed elytris in medio prothorace multo latioribus. 

 Antennae ut in Microxylobio ; sed scapo paido longiore et ad apicem 

 magis clavato ; funiculo 5-articidato, art. l mo secundo distincte latiore, 

 2do tertio midto (et etiam primo paulo) longiore. Pedes ut in genere 

 praacedenti, sed dense squamosi, antici ad basin vix distantiores ; 

 femoribus muticis, paido magis clavatis, et unco tibiali acutiore, magis 

 incurvo. 



A vrjcriuTris insula incola. 



The remarkable little insect for which I have been compelled to 

 erect the present genus has, at first sight, so much the appearance 

 of a small Acalles, that (before critically overhauling it) I had placed 

 it aside as a member of that group. On closer examination, how- 

 ever, its funiculus is composed of only five joints (instead of seven), 

 whilst there is no trace of a pectoral groove for the reception of its 

 rostrum. It is consequently excluded from the whole subfamily 

 Cryptorhynchides by the latter circumstance alone ; whilst from the 

 Cossonides, with some of the genera of which it would agree as 

 regards the former, it is altogether remote. Its affinities are indeed 

 extremely doubtful ; but, upon the whole, I should have been in- 

 clined to suspect that the Cholides would perhaps have received it 

 more readily than any other of Schonherr's subfamilies, had not Prof. 

 Lacordaire assured me that in his opinion it could not properly be 

 associated with the exponents of that department. Nevertheless I 

 may add that M. Jekel concurred with me in regarding the Cholides 

 as its most probable location, — adding that, when thus situated, it 

 would find a " somewhat allied neighbour, in general outline and 

 many analogous characters, in the genus Pylarm, from the Cape of 



