198 



Revisional Notes on the Family Cistelidae 



(ORDER COLEOPTERA). 



By H. J. Carter, B.A., F.E.S. 



[Read August 12, 1920.] 



Cistelidae (1). — Tlirougli the courtesy of Professor Poulton, 

 who has personally taken the Hope types to the British Museum, 

 it is now possible to clear up some of the mysteries connected 

 with species unidentified in Australian collections referred 

 to in my Revision, (2) and I gladly quote the result of Mr. 

 Blair's examination of these : — 



"Hybrenia (allecula) pimelioides, Hope (N. Holl.). 

 Type male agrees mth a single^ broken specimen in the British 

 Museum from Port Darwin. It is without doubt Hyhrenia 

 jyi'inceps, Blackb. (type female), and is, I think, different 

 from the Queensland species that I had as pimelioides. The 

 punctures of both thorax and elytra are finer and more 

 sparsely placed, those of the striae are not connected by any 

 impressed line, the hind tibiae of male are straight, not in- 

 curved at apex, and the impression on the last abdominal 

 segment extends nearly (f of the way) to the base, and has 

 two blunt tubercles at its limit-s. This last character sharply 

 separates it from H. elongata, Macl., and the lack of impressed 

 striae on the elytra separates it from H. suhlaevi><, Macl. 

 (id., H. J. C), of which, however, I have no male. 



"A. OMOPHiLOiDES, Hope (type female, N. Holl.), is cor- 

 rectly determined as Metistete singularis, Haag. 



"A. melancholica, Hope (type female, N. Holl.) = 

 M. GiBBicoLLis, Newm. 



"A. foveicollis, Hope (type female, N. Holl.) = 

 H. cisTELOiDEs, Newm. (type male). 



"A. CANESCENS, Hope (type. Port Essington), is not the 

 species usually so identified, but is nearer H. maculata, Haag. 



(1) By the kind permission of the Editor, the following note 

 is added since reading of paper: — "In the catalogue of Jinik, 

 Berr Borchmann followed Seidlitz in substituting the name 

 Alleciilidae [used in this paper Avhen read] for Cistelidae on the 

 ground that Cistela was used by Geoffroy (1764) in another family, 

 and therefore. Cistela F. (1773) was preoccupied. Geoffrey's 

 names, however, are not accepted, hence Cistela F. stands as a 

 valid generic name, with type sulphurea, Latr. (1810), and the 

 family name is therefore correctly Cistelidae." 



(2) Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict, 1915. p. 82. 



