329 



by the comparatively approximate eyes (the interval between 

 which is much less than the width of each eye as seen from 

 above) and the strongly bisinuate base of the prothorax. 



The species which I described as Cistela australica (Proc. L. 

 Soc, N.S.W., 1888, p. 1,441), in the collection made in the 

 N. Territory by Mr. J. P. Tepper, appears to belong to this 

 genus, though its condition does not allow a very satisfactory 

 examination'of all details. The genus is very near Cistela^ but I 

 think the characters mentioned above (especially the first) 

 together with the distinct lamella under the penultimate joint of 

 each tarsus justify its separation.* 



N. latus, sp. nov. Convexus ; sat late ovalis ; supra mmus 

 nitidus ; pube f ulva vestitus ; obscure brunneus vel rufus, 

 antennis palpis pedibusque plus minusve dilutioribus ; 

 capite prothoraceque confertim aspere sat fortiter punc- 

 tulatis ; hoc quam longiori vix duplo latiori, basi fortiter 

 bisinuata quam margo anticus duplo latiori quam elytrorum 

 basis hand angustiori, angulis posticis acutis leviter 

 retrorsum directis ; elytris sat crebre subfortiter punctulatis, 

 punctulato-striatis, interstitiis subconvexis, lateribus sat 

 arcuatis ; corpore subtus nitido sparsim punctulato, exemplis 

 nonnullis piceo-maculato. Maris oculis quam femin^ paullo 

 magis approximatis. Long., 3^1.; lat. \^\. 



I judge from the brief description of Allecula Master si, Macl., 

 that it is a member of this genus, and very nearly allied to this 

 species. As, however, its habitat is very different (Gayndah, 

 Qu.), and the description does not agree altogether with the 

 S. Australian form (calling the pubescence " semi-erect," and the 

 tarsi differently coloured from the tibias), I have little doubt of 

 its distinctness. 



S. Australia and Victoria ; under bark of Eucalyptus. 



N. debilis, sp. nov. Pr?ecedenti valde affinis, sed minor, minus 

 latus, antennis apicem versus infuscatis fere nigris, elytrorum 

 striis apicem versus obsoletis ; corpore subtus magis crebre 

 magis fortiter punctulato. Long., 241.; lat., 11. 



Certainly very close to T. latus, but the characters mentioned 

 above, its uniformly smaller size, narrower form, elytral stri<^ 

 almost entirely failing near the apex (in T. latus they are almost 

 deeper near the apex than elsewhere), and the evidently stronger 



* Since writing the above I have examined the types of various Cistelidiv. 

 in the Macleay Museum. I find that Cistela depressiuscula, Macl., is cer- 

 tainly congeneric with my Nocar latus and is extremely close to it specifi- 

 cally. Unfortunately I had not an example of N. lafits with me, so could 

 not compare the two to determine whether they are specifically distinct. 



