81 



King. From the first and last of them its antennal structure 

 furnishes a ready distinction. I should hesitate to separate it 

 from lunatica were it not for the phrase, "thorace breviter obcor- 

 dato," in the description of that insect, a phrase which could not 

 be rightly applied to the present insect, the prothorax of which 

 is scarcely, if at all, wider than long. In the figure of the magni- 

 fied antenna of B. lunatica, moreover, the second joint is repre- 

 sented as longer than the third, which is not the case in 

 B. Ovensensis. 



Victoria ; in a marsh near the banks of the Ovens River, 

 among dead leaves. 



B. paladis, sp. nov. Nitida ; sat angusta ; vix pubescens ; vix 

 perspicue punctulata ; ferruginea, antennarum clava vix 

 pallidiori ; antennis minus elongatis, clava 2-articulata, hac 

 valde dilatata et elongata ; capite inter oculos minute bi- 

 foveolato ; prothorace sequali minus transverse, quam caput 

 paullo longiori ; elytris quam prothorax fere duplo longiori- 

 bus, striis suturali sat distincta discoidali nulla. 

 Maris segmento basali ventrali antice creberrime aspere punc- 

 tulato, postice obscure tuberculato, segmento apicali fovea 

 rotunda impresso ; tibiis intermediis intus in medio obtuse 

 dentatis, posticis apicem versus dilatatis arcuatis. 

 Femina latet. Long., ^ 1. 



The antennae are scarcely so long as the head and prothorax 

 together ; the club consists of two joints, and is not much shorter 

 than all the preceding joints together, and is very strongly di- 

 lated. Joints 1 and 2 are very stout and cylindric, 1 a little 

 longer and stouter than 2 ; joints 3-9 stout and scarcely increasing 

 in thickness, 3 scarcely transverse, the following joints becoming 

 more so ; 10 is about three times as wide as 9, and is as long as 

 the preceding 3 joints together; 11 is of about the same width, 

 and nearly twice as long as 10. 



S. Australia ; in debris on some marshy ground near Adelaide. 



EUPINES. 



This name was proposed by Archdeacon King for what he con- 

 sidered a subgenus of Bryaxis. I am inclined to think it may 

 be treated as a good genus. I have seen numerous species re- 

 ferable to it, and find that (besides the characters mentioned by 

 its author) they agree in exhibiting a uniform type of sexual 

 peculiarity in the sculpture of the meta-sternum and second (tlie 

 first that is readily apparent) of the ventral segments of the hind- 

 body. The following Australian species apparently attributable 

 to Eupines, have already been described (most of them as 

 Bryaxis), viz : — 



