383 



would stand in the tabulation beside Bo villi y Blackb., from 

 which it differs inter alia multa by the much closer punc- 

 turation of its dorsal surface. The omission of descrip- 

 tion of the pygidium is due to that segment being unnaturally 

 drawn up under the elytra in such fashion that it could not 

 be examined without damaging the specimen. 



New South Wales; Picton. Given to me by Mr. 

 Griffith. 



Before passing to the consideration of Group II. it seems 

 desirable to remark on two or three species described by the 

 earlier authors, which seem to be possibly attributable to this 

 group. 



H. s pad ice us, Burm. The description of the clypeus does 

 not indicate quite clearly (though I take it to have that 

 meaning) that the clypeus is overtopped by the labrum ; if 

 that is the case this species falls into my Group V. or VI., 

 if not, it belongs to this or the second group, in neither of 

 which have I seen any species presenting the characters Bur- 

 meister indicates, viz., labrum conspicuous in front of the 

 clypeus, surface entirely grabrous and nitid. Long., 4 1. 

 (from Western Australia). 



H. unguiculatus, Burm. This species probably belongs 

 to the present group, although it is not quite clear whether 

 it may not be a member of Group V. In Group I. its front 

 tibiae with only two distinct external teeth separate it strongly 

 from all the species known to me, except Tepperi, Blackb., 

 from which it differs, infe?- alia, by its claws "tief ges- 

 palten" at the apex. 



H. rofundiceps, Blanch., seems to be a member of either 

 this group or Group II., according as its claws (which are 

 not described), are bifid or appendiculat-e. It appears to be 

 distinguished from all the species known to me of those 

 groups by its being an iridescent insect, and iridescence is 

 so extremely rare in TJ eteronyx that I should not be sur- 

 prised if the species is wrongly attributed to this genus. 



Group II. 

 The known species attributable to this group are even 

 less in number than those of Group I., and they are quite as 

 rare in collections. They seem to fall naturally into a com- 

 mon aggregate with the exception of H. fortis, Blackb., sub- 

 fortisj Blackb., and lilliputanus, Blackb., the robust subquad- 

 rate form and glabrous (or nearly so) subopaque dorsal sur- 

 face of the former two giving them a somewhat aberrant ap- 

 pearance, and the last named by its diminutive size and other 

 characters having a facies not in the least suggestive of a 

 place among the other species of this group. I regret having 



