187 



II. This suture not noticeably en- 

 feebled in the middle. 



Scymnodes. 



FF. Prosternum produced to cover the mouth 



or gans. Cryjytolcp.mus. 



EE. Mesosternum carinate. Platyomus. 



DD. Antennae formed of only eight joints. 



K. Epistoma truncate in front. Novius.. 



KK. Epistoma emarginate in front. Hypoceras. 

 CC. Epipleurse with well defined fovese. 



L. Prosternum short. Bucolellus. 



LL. Prosternum long. Bucolus. 



BB. Base of the antennae hidden behind the dilated epistoma. 



M. Epipleurse with well defined fovea?. Lipernes. 



MM. Epipleur?e devoid of well defined foveas. Pharus. 



AA. Femora fitting into excavations of the under surface. 



N. Tibi£e fitting into sulci on under surface of femora. 



Serangium^ 

 NN. Femora normally sulcated. Cyrema. 



EUPALEA. 



It is with much hesitation that I attribute the following species. 

 to the tropical South American genus Eujmlea, notwithstanding 

 that in the supplement to his work M. Mulsant himself (the 

 author of the genus) attributes an Australian species to it (which, 

 however, Mr. Crotch regards as a mistake). The possession of 

 the following characters would seem to place the insect before me 

 in the group of CoccineUicke, which Dr. Chapuis calls " Poriites," 

 viz., base of antenna? exposed, epipleurse not bearing well-defined 

 foveae, body pubescent, epistoma entire in front, antennae long- 

 enough to reach the base of the prothorax (or nearly so), and 

 having the apical joints elongate. From Rhizohius (which agrees 

 with it in most of these respects) it difffers by its finely granulated 

 large eyes, with their inner margins subparallel. 



The group Poriites, according to Dr. Chapuis, contains two 

 genera — Poria and EujKdea — both inhabiting tropical America, 

 though Dr. Chapuis alludes to M. Mulsant's Australian species,, 

 and adds that he has himself a species from Australia in his own 

 collection. 



The present insect agrees with Eupalea in most respects — 

 especially in the structure of the antennae, in the rather peculiar 

 prosternal structure, in the sinuation of the epipleurae opposite the 

 hind femora, and in the small size of the abdominal lamellae. It 

 difiers from the characters of Eupalea (as given by Dr. Chapuis) 

 in the finer granulation of the eyes, which are not distinctly 

 sinuated on their internal margin, in the not particularly small 



