70 



busque testaceis : elytris subceneis, basi suturaque obscure 

 testaceis ; abdomine subirideo, apice cupreo-testaceo ; an 

 tennis sat robustis, articulis niillis trans versis ', capite 

 elongate angusto subparallelo, oculis parvis vix convexis ; 

 prothorace quam longiori vix latiori, antice fortiter angus- 

 tato, angulis posticis cum basi omnino rotundatis, puncturis 

 usitatis notatis ; scutello elytrisque (his prothorace vix 

 longioribus) leviter squamose sat crebre, abdomine sparsim 

 crassius, punctulatis. Long., 2^1. ; lat., ll. (vix). 



In M. Fauvel's tabulation of the Australian Quedii (Ann. Mus. 

 Gen., 1877, p. 268) the present species would fall under " B '^ 

 (along with Q. (f7ieus and cuprinus) on account of the narrow 

 elongate form of its head. It is much smaller than either of 

 those species, and inter alia difters also from the former of them 

 by the sparse puncturation of its hind body, and from the latter 

 by the testaceous apical joints of its antennae and the rounded-off 

 hind angles of its prothorax. It is to be noted that the apical 

 joint of the maxillary palpi in this species is slender, very acute 

 at the apex, and much longer than the penultimate joint. In 

 spite of these differences, however, it seems to me not improbable 

 that this is a small Alpine var. of Q. citprinus, and I have given 

 expression to this opinion by recording it as above. 



]\Iountains of Victoria ; a single example in moss at an eleva- 

 tion of about 5,000 feet aboA^e the sea. 



HYPEROMMA. 



During a recent visit to the Victorian Alps I was fortunate in 

 securing two examples (male and female), which evidently belong 

 to this remarkable genus (previously known only, I believe, by a 

 unique male example from King George's Sound), and Avhich 

 ]\I. Fauvel describes as sharing with only two other genera of 

 StapJtylinidft' the singular character of having the eyes placed on 

 the upper surface of the head. I cannot doubt that these two 

 examples are identical specifically, although the differences (all 

 sexual, I believe) are considerable, and I am not absolutely cer- 

 tain that they were taken in company. The species seems to be 

 extremely close to the typical one (II. lacertinum, FvL), but the 

 sexual characters of the male forbid its being regarded as identical 

 unless on the supposition that M. Fauvel was mistaken as to the 

 sex of the specimen he described. This, however, appears to me 

 sufficiently probable to render it inexpedient to give a distinctive 

 name to the species before me, and I shall therefore offer the 

 following as probably merely a correction of the sexual characters 

 assigned to M. Fauvel's species. I cannot find any tangible 

 specific character in which the insects before me do not satisfac- 

 torily agree Avith the very full and clearly-expressed description 



