133 



member of the genus. Having only a single example I have not 

 been able to dissect the parts of the head, and in so small an in- 

 sect it is most difficult to see them clearly without dissection, but 

 as far as T can see they are quite as in A. hirsuta. The only 

 structural differences that I observe consist in the more abrupt 

 truncation of the apex of the elytra and the greater bluntness, as 

 far as I can observe it, of the median tooth of the mentum. 

 Adelaide district ; in flood refuse of the Torrens. 



DIABATICUS. 



The following two species appear to belong to this genus, 

 although its diagnosis (Cist. Ent. 11. , p. 324) is not very clear, 

 unless one happened to possess a type of the American genus 

 Finacodera, with which it is compared, and unfortunately I have 

 not such type, nor do I know of one in any Australian collection. 

 Moreover, the expression " orbitu post-oculari rotundato-angus- 

 tato " is obscure, and the sparseness of puncturation on the 

 elytra can hardly he regarded as a generic character. The 

 species before me seem however to be congeneric with Plochionus 

 australis, Er., for which the genus was formed, and agree fairly 

 with Bates' diagnosis as far as I can follow it, although I should 

 scarcely call the claws " strongly " denticulated. The genus 

 resembles FJdoeocarabus, but differs inter alia in the shorter and 

 stouter tarsi, smaller eyes, and elytra very much shorter in pro- 

 portion to the head and prothorax. 



[While this memoir has been in the printer's hands I have re- 

 ceived from Mr. T. G. Sloane, of Sydney, some remarks on the 

 generic affinities of these and other Lehiides on which I had asked 

 his opinion. Mr. Sloane occupies a foremost place among the 

 rising entomologists of Australia, and his residence in Sydney 

 gives him the opportunity of consulting the oldest and best Aus- 

 tralian collections ; hence, I attribute considerable importance to 

 his determinations. While disclaiming the ability to speak as a 

 specialist on the Lehiides, he is disinclined to refer the following 

 two species to Diabaticus, but is unable to refer them to any other 

 described genus. As will be seen from my remarks (above) I 

 think it quite possible that Mr. Sloane is right in this matter, 

 but, nevertheless, it seems to me advisable to use the name Diaba- 

 ticus for the present, rather than form a new genus closely allied 

 to Diabaticus, especially as I can specify no good structural dis- 

 tinctive character. I think I have described the species under 

 consideration sufficiently in detail to pi event any actual incon- 

 venience arising from my having attributed them to a genus in 

 which they can perhaps hardly maintain a permanent place. 



I should add that Mr. Sloane tells me he cannot regard as 

 genuinely pertaining to Phheocarabus the South Australian spe- 



