317 



libice have also stronger spurs and the apical notch is more 

 pronounced. But the abdominal depression is shallower, and 

 does not run out to a point. The clothing is much as on the 

 -type. 



Another male (3 mm.) has a conspicuous but irregular 

 patch of dark scales at the base of the elytra, and some obscure 

 spots about the middle. A female (the only one known to me) 

 associated with it has identical markings, but differs in haA-ing 

 the rostrum somewhat longer and thinner, with punctures of 

 moderate size only at the extreme base (where they are partly 

 concealed), antennas inserted nearer base than apex of rostrum, 

 front and hind tibiee normal, and basal segment of abdomen 

 rather strongly convex. 



Melanterius maculatus, Lea. 



A specimen from Tasmania differs from the normal form 

 in having the derm of the prothorax and elytra entirely black, 

 instead of a rather dark-brown. 



Melanterius conspiciendus, Lea. 



A specimen from Brisbane is evidently a female of this 

 species. It differs from the type, evidently a male, in being 

 slightly smaller ; rostrum longer and thinner, with less evident 

 rows of punctures ; antennse inserted not quite so close to apex 

 •of rostrum ; and basal segment of abdomen convex, instead of 

 -depressed, in middle. 



Melanterius AMPLiPENNis, Lea (now Diet Jnisa). 



The type of this species is a female ; it differs from the 

 female of DietJiusa ainji^icorni^ in being smaller and with a 

 considerably longer rostrum. A male of the species has recently 

 been taken at Gosford, and it is undoubtedly extremely close 

 to the male of D. cwiijlicornis, but differs in being much smaller 

 (3^ mm. only), with the two apical joints of funicle and the 

 club rather narrower (but still much larger than usual), the 

 legs shorter and stouter, tl;e hind tibiae more strongly 

 bisinuate, with the apical sinus decidedly shorter, and deeper, 

 appearing much like a notch ; the middle tibise are also dis- 

 tinct! 37- bisinuate instead of arched. The second abdominal 

 segment, however, is slightly shorter than the third, and its 

 sides clasp the sides of that segment exactly as in the male of 

 D. amplicornis. 



The two species are certainly congeneric, but the differ- 

 •ences in the legs of the males and rostra of the females convince 

 me that they are not conspecific, despite the same peculiar 

 antennae and abdomen. As the main distinction between 



