293 



me at present necessary to limit oneself in distributing species 

 among the Australian Phalacrid genera in Tr. Roy. Soc. S.A., 

 1895, pp. 205, &c. It is extremely difficult to discern the sutures 

 between the joints of the hind tarsi in this species. 



N.S. Wales ; Mr. Lea (Clifton). 

 L. baccce/ormis, sp. nov. Ovalis ; nitidus ; obscure brunneus, an- 

 tennis palpis pedibuset subtus capite prothoraceque testaceo- 

 brunneis ; antennarum articulis 3*" quam 4''* sat longiori, 

 4° 5° que inter se sat jequalibus haud transversis, 6° — 8° 

 latioribus transversis, 9" multo majori sat fortiter transverso 

 ad basin modice angustato, 10° quam longiori duplo latiori, 

 IP quam 10"^' sublatiori, quam praecedentes 2 conjuncti haud 

 multo breviori ; supra vix manifeste punctulatus, sed ely- 

 trorum partibus lateralibus apicalibusque (sub lente forti) 

 subtiliter seriatim punctulatis, in partibus dorsalibus punc- 

 turis nonnuUis (sub lente forti) sparsissime impressis ; 

 tarsis posticis sat robustis, articulo basali quam 2"^^ mani- 

 feste longiori. Long., f 1.; lat., ^ 1. (vix). 

 This minute Phalacrid has much the appearance of a small 

 shining seed. From the other species almost devoid of punctura- 

 tion it differs notably by its colour and shape. On the dorsal 

 portions of the elytra a few moderately distinct scattered punc- 

 tures are discernible under a Coddington lens, which appear to 

 me to represent the seriate punctures of the interstices that are 

 so conspicuous in some of the other species of the genus. 

 N.S. Wales (from Mr. Lea, Galston). 



L, noieroides, Blackb. This species together with pulchellus, 

 Blackb., and color atus, Blackb., can hardly be considered 

 genuinely congeneric with the species that I believe to be 

 L. hrunneus, Er., on account of inter alia the different sculpture 

 of their pronotum and the greater length of the basal joint of 

 their hind tarsi. They, however, out of all the Australian 

 Phalacridce known to me come nearest to what M. Guillebeau 

 conjectures to be the typical form of Litocrus. Although I do 

 not share his opinion, the matter is perhaps sufficiently uncertain 

 to render it unadvisable at present to confer a new generic name 

 on these species, I incline to regard Litocrus and Micromerus 

 as synonyms, but even if they are not I do not think these 

 species could confidently be referred to either of them,— certainly 

 not to Micromerus. 



Micromerus amahilis^ Guilleb. I have still been unable to 

 find among the many Phalacridce from various parts of Australia 

 that I have examined any specimens to which I can apply this 

 name with any confidence. L. tinctus, Blackb., is no doubt very 

 near it but differs in size. The smallest specimen that I have 

 seen is Long,, 1 1., whereas amahilis should be Long., IJ mm. 



