102 



use descnbers liave made of the presence or absence (and the- 

 shape) of a piece of the under-surface which is, I suppose, the^ 

 epimeron of the mesosternum, and which in some genera assumes 

 a remarkable position and form ; in MeJigethes (e.g.) it appears- 

 as a triangular plate separating from each other in the front half 

 of their length the metasternum and the metasternal episternum. 

 As I am not quite sure that I am right in deeming it the meso- 

 sternal epimeron, I propose in the following descriptions, ttc, 

 where I have occasion to refer to this piece, to call it the " inter- 

 mediate plate," so as to avoid the risk of giving it a misleading 

 name. I ha^-e looked through several works on the N'itididid(f 

 (e.g.^ Reitter's '' Systematische Eintheilung der Nitidularien," the 

 chapter on the " Nitidulaires " in the " Genera des Coleopteres,"" 

 the corresponding chapter in the " Tnsecten Deutschlands ") with- 

 out having found any discussion of this character — although I 

 have no doubt it has been remarked by someone, if I could hit 

 the right author. I have not access to a sufficiently large collec- 

 tion of Kitidnlid(f to be able to say how far this character would 

 be available for purposes of classification in general ; but so far 

 as concerns the Australian species and such European and 

 American ones as are resp resented in my collection, the inter- 

 position of this "intermediate plate '' between the metasternum 

 and its episterna, and also its shape when so interposed, appear 

 to be distinctive of genera. I have examined a considerable 

 number of specimens of the following genera, and find -this 

 " intermediate plate " in Cychramptodes, Meligethes, Pria, Mac- 

 roura, Gaulodes, Xitidula, Cychramus, Ips (all well defined) ; 

 and in Amphotis and Pocadius feebly discoverable ; while in the 

 Brachyj^terides, Carj)ophilides, Epurtea, Haptoncus, Haptoncura, 

 Soronia, and Omosita I do not find it at all discernible. 



Another character that might, I think, be much used with 

 advantage in classifying the Xitidididcc is the degree of coarse- 

 ness of granulation of the eye. So far as I haA^e been able to 

 investigate the matter the granulation of the eyes in this family 

 is of three distinct types. It is more or less fine in the Brachy- 

 pterides, Carpophilides, Epura^a, Haptoncus, Haptoncura, Nitidula. 

 Amphotis, Omosita, Meligethes, Pocadius, Macroura, Pria, Ips.. 

 In the other genera, viz., Soronia, Gaulodes, Lasiodoctylus, 

 Cychramptodes, Idfvthina, ^thinodes, Cychramus, it is coarser ; 

 but of those with more coarsely granulated eyes (i.e., with the 

 facets large) some have the individual facets almost fiat (e.g.. 

 Gaulodes, Cychramptodes), while others have them more or less 

 strongly convex, Id(pthina (presuming my identification of that 

 genus to be correct) standing pre-eminent in respect of that 

 character. 



