255 
the sides, its front margin usually somewhat sinuate, its base 
feebly carinate and furnished in the middle with a feeble tubercle 
in the male; prothorax without any discal depression or elevation 
in either sex, usually with a small fovea on either side near the 
lateral margin and a feeble basal impression on either side of the 
middle; elytra more or less punctulate-striate, the strie not 
geminate ; antennal club small in both sexes ; mentum evidently 
though not strongly compressed (considerably more ridge-like, 
e.g., than in Cheiroplatys or Novapus), mandibles in repose but 
little visible ; front tibize tridentate in both sexes, posterior tibiz 
bicarinate ; apex of hind tibiz ciliate, one of its apical spines 
inserted more or less behind the base of the tarsus; basal joint 
of hind tarsi short and very widely dilated at apex; claws simple 
in both sexes. M. Lacordaire asserts that there are organs of 
stridulation in two rows on the propygidium, but I have not 
succeeded in finding organs of stridulation in any Pimelopus that 
I have examined. 
This genus is near my Pseudopimelopus which differs from it 
- by the presence of a strong cephalic horn and a large prothoracic 
excavation in the male, and by the front claws being unequal in 
the same sex,—also by the sub-basal carina on the posterior tibize 
(especially the hind pair) being notably feebler and the rows of 
punctures on the elytra running in pairs. 
IT have already (Tr. Roy. Soc., 1887, p. 217) stated and given 
reasons for my opinion that Burmeister (and Lacordaire following 
his authority) was in error in thinking that the female on which 
Erichson formed the genus Pimelopus appertained to a species 
whose male exhibited the characters specified above as distinctive 
of Pseudopimelopus. I think there is no reasonable doubt in the 
matter and that consequently the only true Pimelopus described 
previously to 1887 was the typical species of the genus (unless 
P. levis, Burm., be another; it is described on a female and 
almost certainly appertains to some other genus; at any rate is 
not as a species at all like any species known to me as congeneric 
with P. porcellus, Er.). In 1887 I added two species to the genus, 
—one of them doubtfully, but subsequent study confirms its 
place,—and I now have to describe another species of which I 
took a female some years ago in N.S. Wales and have since 
received both sexes (taken near Sydney) from Mr. Lea. The 
following table shows some of the distinctive characters of the 
species,—which are very closely allied and differ chiefly in the 
structure of the hind tarsi and the sculpture of the elytra. It is 
to be noted that as far as my observations go Lacordaire’s state- 
ment that Pimelopus has organs of stridulation is incorrect (it 
does not appear that that author had seen a true Pimelopws), 
and also that the tubercle on the head of the female mentioned 
R 
