1896.] of the Coleoj^tera of South Africa. 253 



De Chaudoir in his ' Monographie des Lebiides,' Bull. Mosc, 

 1870-1, has divided in two sections the tvue Lebiides, i.e., Lamiwiadce, 

 and Lebiides. In his " true Lebiides " he includes only such 

 Lebiidce, the palpi of which are never securiform, the antennae 

 never filiform, the labrum never incised, the claws never without 

 serration or pectination, and the elytra always with two punctures on 

 the third interval. He establishes also his two divisions, Lamjjriadce 

 and Lebiidce, on the presence or absence of a process edging the 

 inner side of the lateral lobes of the mentum, to which part he gives 

 the name of " epilobe " ; but the epilobes are more or less developed 

 in different species of the same genus, and cannot thus prove to be a 

 distinctive generic character ; and I also agree with Horn, who says 

 that he is prepared to state that there is no Carabid without epilobes. 



In the group LampriadcB he includes two genera, Lioi)eza and 

 Nematopeza, which I think, perhaps wrongly (it is a matter of 

 opinion), might be sunk in the synonymy list; and in the Lebiidce he 

 originates two new genera, Promecochila and Astata, which might 

 be retained. 



Gen. LIOPEZA, Chaud., 

 Log. cit., p. 144. 



Mentum with the lobes appendiculate, the central part dentate, 

 with the tooth broadly rounded and not articulate; antennae slender^ 

 elongate, hairless at the base ; tarsi elongate, slender, glabrous on 

 the upper part, densely pilose underneath, in fact almost spongy, 

 the fourth joint slightly emarginate (the diagnose based on a female 

 example) ; claws elongate, slender, strongly dentate inwardly with 

 five oblique, well-developed teeth, the basal one the smallest of all. 



This includes one species only, i.e., L. thoracica, Bohem., the type 

 of which I have been able to examine, and which differs from Lebia 

 only in having more slender anterior tarsi, which are not "fere 

 spongiosi," I.e., p. 146; although the colouring is somewhat different 

 from the South African Lebia, it is approximated by Lebia si^eciosa. 



Gen. NEMATOPEZA, Chaud., 

 Log. cit., p. 146. 



The diagnosis is almost the same as in Liopeza, and the author 

 admits it and adds : " Although the generic characters of this group 

 differ but little from those of Liopeza, the facies of these insects is 

 very different : the eyes are more prominent, the prothorax is more 

 transverse and more narrowed in the anterior part, the elytra are 

 broader and shorter ; most of the species have the same colouring of 

 a yellow design on a brown or black background, the distinctive 

 character is found in the length of the tarsi of Liopeza, and in the 

 greater length of the median mentum tooth, which is also narrower." 



