317 



slightly raised in front, the hind body itself being narrower and 

 more convex transversely. The general facies is suggestive of 

 Cistela. 



P. ovalis, sp. nov. Sat nitida; ovalis; sparsim })revissime griseo- 

 vel fulvo-pubescens; nigra, palpis antennarum basi tibiis 

 anticis et unguiculis omnibus rufo-testaeeis ; supra crebre 

 subtiliter sat profunde sat aequaliter punctulata ; elytris 

 prope suturam obsoletius striatis ; corpore subtus subfortiter 

 minus crebre punctulato. 

 Variat antennarum parte dimidia basali et pedibus totis (vel 

 plus minusve), rufo-testaceis. Long., 2| — 2^ 1. ; lat., | — 1 L 

 The base of the prothorax is as wide as the base of the elytra ; 

 in the males the greatest width is in front of the middle of the 

 elytra, which is very evidently, but not very much, wider than 

 that of the base ; in the females the elytra are evidently wider, 

 and at their widest about the middle. 

 Victoria ; Alpine district ; on flowers. 



HOMOTRYSIS. 



The Australian Cistelidce having bifid mandibles, described 

 prior to 1866, were all referred by the authors to Allecula and 

 Cistela. None of them, I think, were satisfactorily described 

 (unless it be Allecula fuscij^emiis, Blessig), even Germar's des- 

 criptions being unreliable, because he placed in Allecula at least 

 one species having simple mandibles ; the rest are unrecognisable, 

 unless the types be referred to. In 1866 (Journ. of Ent.) Mr. 

 Pascoe very l)riefly characterised three new genera for this group 

 of Cistelidce — Metistete, Homotrysis, and Hybrenia. I think I 

 have not seen either of the species their author placed in 

 IIyhre7iia, but I am unable to regard the characters by which he 

 distinguished them from Homotrysis as satisfactory, inasmuch as 

 one of them (the approximation of the eyes) I find to vary con- 

 siderably (and even sexually) among species that certainly seem 

 incapable of being suitably placed in difierent genera, and the 

 other (the close application of the prothorax to the elytra) seems 

 to me to be presented by nearly all the Australian Cistelidce of 

 this group, even H. microderes (I have no doubt Allecula 

 fusci2:>ennis, Blessig), which Mr. Pascoe himself placed in 

 Homotrysis, having the prothorax very closely fitted to the elytra, 

 and the eyes considerably approximated in the male. I do not, of 

 course, say that Hybrenia is not a good genus, only that the 

 characters given to distinguish it from Homotrysis appear to me 

 insuflicient. As to Homotrysis, I take it to be a good genus, as 

 the Australian species near Allecula seem to be unsuitably placed 

 in the latter genus. Metistete also appears to be a good genus, 

 its most distinctive character (not mentioned by its author) being 



