41 



qxiam ad basin sat latiori : tibiis anticis extus f ortiter 

 tridentatis ; tarsoruni posticorum articulo basaii 2° sat 

 gequali, qtiam 3"^ sat longiori ; unguiciilis appendiculatis. 

 Long., 7 1.; lat., 4 1. 



A somewhat close ally of the preceding species (H. pon- 

 dcrosns), but easily distinguished from it by the very much 

 closer puncturation of its elytra as well as by various other 

 characters that will be noticed by comparing the descriptions. 

 New South Wales ; Queanbeyan (Messrs. Griffith and 

 Lea). 



//. pice lis, Blanch. I have before me a considerable 

 number of specimens (from various localities in New South 

 Wales and South Australia) which present the combination 

 of characters that in the preceding tabulation refer them to 

 this species. I am of opinion that they include several closely 

 allied species differing, inter se, in respect of puncturation, 

 of the form of the hind tibiae, and in several other respects. 

 There is little doubt that H. piceus, Blanch., is among them, 

 but the description of that insect might well have been 

 founded on any one of them. Under these circumstances I 

 am not prepared to risk error — the type of H . piceus not be- 

 ing available for inspection — by assigning the name to one 

 rather than another, and I adopt this course the more will- 

 ingly because they are really very closely allied species which 

 it would be extremely difficult to differentiate intelligibly in 

 words. When I redescribed B. piceus (P.L.S., N.S.W., 

 1888, p. 1341) I had before me two of these forms — which I 

 then regarded as identical — and although my description was 

 drawn up from inspection of one specimen in particular, it 

 does not happen (fortunately I think) to mention any of 

 the slight details of structure which an examination of nume- 

 rous specimens has since led me to think differentiate the 

 form described from the other form then regarded by me as 

 identical. In a subsequent memoir (P.L.S., N.S.W., 1889, 

 p. 1228) I mentioned another specimen which I thought could 

 hardly be separated from H. piceus, but which I am now 

 disposed to regard as distinct but for the reasons stated 

 above I do not propose to describe it under a new name, it 

 being quite possibly the true picevs. It is worthy of note 

 that in the Macleay Museum //. piceus, Blanch., is repre- 

 sented by two species, one of which is certainly not piceus 

 while the other is identical with one of the formf before 

 me when I redescribed the species. 



//. sexualis, sp. nov. Sat robustus, modice elongatus : minus 

 nitidus : ferrugineus : supra pilis adpressis perbrevibus 

 sat sparsim vestitus : clypeo confertim ruguloso, antice 

 rotundato ; labro (hoc transversim rotundato) summo 

 clypei planum haud attingenti : fronte confertim sub- 



