155 



HH. Basal edging of pro- 

 notum notably raised 

 at ends ; hind angles 



well marked 



AAA. Hind coxa? not longer than 2nd 

 visible ventral segment. 

 B. Frons not perpendicularly declivous 

 in front. 

 C. Pronotum closely punctulate (20 

 or more punctures in length of 

 segment). 

 D. Clypeus and frons on an even 



continuous pi me 



DD. Planes of clypeus and frons 

 very different, latter very con- 

 vex 



OC. Pronotum sparsely punctulate; 

 15 or 16 punctures down middle 

 line. 

 D. Frons quite strongly (somewhat 



coarsely) rugulose 



DD. Frons smoothly, finely, and 

 not closely punctulate 

 E. Basal edging of pronotum well 



defined 



EE. Basal edging of pronotum 

 extremely fine (scarcely dis- 

 tinct) 



BB. Frons perpendicularly declivous at 

 the clypeal suture 



fraserensis, Blackb. 



austrinus, Blackb. 

 lateritius, Blackb. 



campestris, Blackb. 



debilis, Blackb. 



jejunus, Blackb. 

 dentipes, Blackb. 



II . raucinasus, Blackb. I believe that there are before me 

 two distinct species extremely close to raucinasus and to each 

 other, but as I have more than a single specimen of only one 

 of the three, it seems better to regard them for the present as 

 possibly varieties. The type is from South Australia, and 

 has non-granulate elytra, with puncturation finer and notably 

 less squamose than the other two. Of the others, one is from 

 South Australia, and is fairly plentiful ; besides the different 

 elytral sculpture already noted its prothorax is quite evidently 

 more transverse and less narrowed in front. The third is 

 from the Dividing Range in Victoria, and is a little smaller 

 than the last mentioned, with its prothorax even more nar- 

 rowed in front than that of raucinasus. 



II. constans, Blackb. This South Australian species is 

 very close to II. yilgarne.nsis, from Western Australia. The 

 puncturation of the dorsal surface is quite distinctly closer, 

 especially about the apical region of the elytra; but the best 

 distinction that I have observed is that noted in the tabu- 

 lation. 



H . nigellus, Er. (?). I have already pointed out and 

 discussed the difficulty of identifying this species (Proc. Linn. 

 Soc, N.S.W., 1889, p. 157). I am not able to throw any 



