35 



brown; ventral segments maculate with lighter in middle and 

 at sides. 



Head convex, upper-surface practically in same plane 

 with that of rostrum, forehead with three ridges, the exten- 

 sion backwards of the rostral carinae. Rostrum broad, the 

 carinas on upper-surface distinct, transversely convex, the 

 median carina narrowing slightly to base and widening some- 

 what on head; sublateral sulci long, foveiform at base. Head 

 and rostrum remotely and subobsoletely punctate. Prothorax 

 (5x6 mm.) moderately ampliate, widest in front of middle; 

 ocular lobes rather prominent. Disc convex, median impres- 

 sion rather ill-defined, apical impression only traceable at 

 sides; closely set with small regular rounded tubercles, not 

 noticeably depressed; sides granulate. Elytra (11x7 mm.) 

 gradually but not greatly widened to behind middle ; base 

 arcuate, humeral angles marked by small tubercles. Disc 

 with regular rows of shallow impressions, separated by small 

 setigerous granules concealed by clothing; interstices tuber- 

 culate ; second with three isolated elongate tubercles near 

 middle; third with a regular row of fifteen, closely set, ex- 

 tending from base half-way down declivity, rounded basally, 

 subcorneal on declivity ; fourth without tubercles ; fifth with 

 a continuous row of twenty-two smaller rounded tubercles; 

 sixth with nine intermediate in size and not extending to 

 base. Sides with tubercles obsolete. Apical ventral segment 

 with a strong median channel bordered on either side by a 

 small tubercle. Anterior femora with a feeble indication of 

 a ridge beneath; intermediate tibiae with a strong subapical 

 notch. 



9 . More robust and ovate in outline; beneath convex, 

 the fifth segment with a feeble median impression; anterior 

 femora not ridged ; intermediate tibiae wtih a feeble indica- 

 tion of a subapical notch. 



Dim. — $ , 18 x 7 mm. ; 9 > 20 x 9 mm. 



Hah. — Gawler Ranges (F. Andrews, South Australian 

 Museum, type). 



The notch on the intermediate tibiae will separate the 

 species from all, except S. neglectus and S. dimidiatiis, of 

 the members of the first section of the genus. From S. neg- 

 lectus its larger size and in general more robust form will, in 

 addition to the *more marked differences in the prothoracic 

 and elytral sculpture, help to distinguish it. To this species 

 I refer with some slight doubt specimens from Port Lincoln ; 

 these latter, however, show a decided tendency towards S. 

 neglectus and lead me to question whether both forms do not 

 belong to the one variable species. I do not think, however, 

 that this is really the case. S. dimidiatas, Macl., is founded 

 c2 



