292 



then runs along for a short distance parallel with the front 

 margin. It is perhaps nearest to alternans, Blackb., from which 

 it differs however in size and colour, also in the lateral stria of its 

 pronotum (as described above), also in its evidently less convexity 

 (viewed from the side), also in the absence of puncturation on the 

 elytral interstices (except the seriate puncturation of the alternate 

 interstices). Its antennae are like those of alter7ia7is, — differing 

 from those of major by the very much shorter eighth joint and 

 from those of sparsus, placfiatus, &c , by the much more elongate 

 ninth joint and the much less dilatation of the club as a whole. 

 Its small size, dark colour, and obsolete elytral puncturation 

 render it very distinct from the Tasmanian Litocrus that I 

 believe to be brunneus, Er. 



Victoria (Dividing Range). 

 L. ohscuricollisj sp. no v. Ovalis ; sat b re vis ; nitidus ; rufo- 

 testaceus, capite pronoto (hoc ad latera, illo antice, dilutiori- 

 bus) et in elytrorum disco postico umbris indeterminatis 

 nigro-piceis ; antennarum articulis 3" quam 4" duplo 

 longiori, 4°— 7° inter se sat requalibus, 8" breviori transverso, 

 9° 10° que multo majoribus quam latiori sublongioribus, 11" 

 quam pr^ecedentes 2 conjuncti parum breviori; capite prono- 

 toque laevibus ; hoc fortiter transverso, stria ut prsecedentis 

 {L. perparvi)', elytrorum sculptura vix manifesta (pone 

 medium paullo magis perspicua), sub microscopio subtilissime 

 striatis et in interstitiis sparsim subtilissime (alternis 

 seriatim magis perspicue) punctulatis ; tarsis posticis quam 

 pr^ecedentis minus robustis, articulo basali quam 2"' vix 

 duplo longiori. Long., 1 1.; lat., -^^^ 1, 

 In colouring extremely like Parasemus inctoriensis, Blackb., 

 but widely different structurally {e.(/. by its much more slender 

 hind tarsi, the basal joint of which is much longer, and by its 

 metasternum much longer and narrower between the intermedi- 

 ate coxa?). From its described congeners the proportional length 

 of its antennal joints (especially the sixth not transverse) readily 

 distinguish it. It is perhaps generically distinct from Litocrus, 

 but the uncertainty of M. Guillebeau's Phalacrid genera and espe- 

 cially the doubt mentioned by him (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1894, 

 p. 279) as to the characters of the type of Litocrus render it 

 unwise for the present to fcrm new Phalacrid genera. My own 

 opinion is that M. Guillebeau is wrong in his conjecture as to the 

 tarsal characters of L. britn7ieus, Er.; he is certainly wrong if 

 the Tasmanian species that I take to be L. brunneus, Er., is 

 really that species ; but as it is certainly possible that my identi- 

 fication is incorrect I do not feel justified in definitely disputing 

 his conjectured characters. I have already discussed this matter 

 and defined the aggregates of characters to which it appeared to 



