105 



elevation are so closely approximated that it is difficult to 

 separate them, more especially on such species as have the 

 under-surface clothed. It appears to me quite possible that, 

 in some cases, owing to the clothing, the front of the elevation 

 on the head has been regarded as the front of the episternum, 

 and consequently the same has been noted as convex, when it 

 was really concave. Moreover, the clothing frequently obscures 

 the lateral sutures of the episternum, and to see these at all 

 clearly, even when the derm is glabrous, the legs must be 

 forced aside. 



A certain amount of ambiguity also seems inseparable 

 from the use of a word signifying the elevation of surface 

 when applied to the edge of same. Strictly speaking, when a 

 flat margin is produced forwards with a rounded outline it 

 should be called rounded, not convex ; conversely, when pro- 

 duced backwards with an incurved outline, it should be called 

 incurved (in some cases emarginate), not concave. But in 

 Rhypariday some species have the front portion of the 

 episternum perfectly flat, with the margin itself rounded or 

 slightly incurved ; on other species the front of it is slightly 

 depressed (concave), or feebly elevated (convex), with the 

 margin similarly rounded or incurved ; but on nearly all the 

 species the greater portion of each side of the prosternum is 

 depressed. 



In Edusa the front margin of the episternum, whilst 

 normally feebly rounded, is sometimes incurved. To strictly 

 apply Chapuis' and Lefevre's definitions, therefore, the species 

 of each of these genera would be distributed between the two 

 main divisions of the subfamily. Moreover, the point of view 

 from which the margin is examined must be taken into con- 

 sideration. From behind (and owing to the front being 

 frequently partially concealed by the overlapping palpi or base 

 of head this must have frequently been the point of view) the 

 front margin may appear to be gently rounded, but the same 

 margin when examined perpendicularly to its middle (the only 

 correct way of seeing its true shape) may appear to be quite 

 straight or even gently incurved ; nor is it always sharply 

 defined even when free of clothing ; so that on small specimens 

 its use has often to be abandoned. ^12) Whatever may be the 

 case in other parts of the world, I have found it quite impos- 

 sible to rely upon parts of the prosternum to separate 

 Australian genera of the subfamily. 



Lefevre's table was a translation (with a few additions) 

 into Latin from Chapuis' table in French. Excluding all 

 groups not recorded as Australian, and transposing some of 



(12) See also comments under Colaspoides picticornis. 



