189 



In the female the front tibiae are still more strongly 

 ~tridentate,( 41 ) the middle tibiae are tridentate at apex, have 

 a strong tooth about the middle and a feeble one behind 

 same. They have also numerous oblique impressions but these 

 are somewhat different to those of the male, so that when 

 viewed from the sides the serrations are much less pronounced, 

 or appear as feeble undulations. 



I cannot regard Schizorrhina unicolor, Macl., as more 

 than a slight variety of the species. Its type was evidently 

 an old female. Two females from King George Sound (from 

 the Macleay Museum) agree quite well with the description 

 and agree in all essential features with typical South Aus- 

 tralian females. 



Metallesthes subpilosa, Nonfr. 

 The description of this species reads as if founded upon 

 an insect similar to nigrans and hirticeps, and so possibly it 

 should be transferred to F seudoclithria . 



PSEUDOCLITHRIA MASTERSI, Macl. 



Mr. French has sent a Gayndah female of this species 

 for examination. Its elytra are almost entirely reddish 

 (slightly infuscated towards the suture), the antennae are also 

 reddish, and the femora are diluted with red. The front 

 tibiae have a strong apical tooth and a median one almost as 

 strong ; the middle and hind tibiae are each transversely den- 

 tate at about the middle and one of the free spurs of the 

 hind pair is grooved throughout and inflated at the tip, some- 

 what as in fossor, although to a less extent. The conspicuous 

 tubercle on the forehead should prevent it from being con- 

 founded with any other species.' 



PSEUDOCLITHRIA HIRTICEPS, Macl. 



var. nigrans, Macl. 

 PI. xiii., fig. 172. 



The typical form of this species was described and figured 

 by Kraatz as Clithria bicostata; but he considered it possibly 

 the female of eucnemis; which most certainly it is not. 



In making the species the type of Pseudoclithria, v.d., 

 Poll described the front tibiae as unidentate in both sexes, 

 evidently not counting the apical tooth as a tooth (in this, 

 however, he has but followed many precedents), much as 

 some others count the elytral interstices as starting with the 

 second, instead of with the sutural one. 



(41) The apical tooth in fresh specimens is much larger than 

 the others, but on many specimens it is broken off, or worn down, 

 so that it appears to be smaller than the one behind it. 



