161 



MISTHOSIMA. 



The species described below may be referred I think to this 

 genus which was founded by Mr. Pascoe to include two insects 

 from Borneo. It agrees very well with the characters attributed 

 to the genus by its author and if not a true congener of the 

 already described species must represent a closely allied new 

 genus distinguishable by characters not mentioned in the diag- 

 nosis. The only discrepancies are slight, consisting in the second 

 antennal joint being scarcely shorter than the basal one and the 

 metasternum not quite so short as in Arceocerus (as, according to 

 description, it should be) but these alone scarcely justify the 

 formation of a new genus. 



M. dorsonotata, sp. no v. Oblonga ; picea, antennarum basi labro 

 femoribus tibiisque testaceis ; pube densa fusca vestita, hac 

 pube cinerea concinne maculatim variegata ; antennarum 

 articulo 2° quam l us vix breviori ; supra confertim aspere 

 subtiliter (in elytris quam alibi paullo minus subtiliter) 

 punctulata ; elytris subtilissime striatis ; pube in corpore 

 subtus quam in corpore supra magis cinerea. Long., If 1.;. 

 lat., 4 1. 



The ashy or whitish pubescence of the upper surface is dis- 

 tributed as follows : — On the head it predominates (the fuscous 

 colour forming two longitudinal lines dilated in front and behind); 

 on the prothorax it is most conspicuous on the sides and middle 

 line ; on the elytra it forms numerous small clearly defined evenly 

 distributed spots, three somewhat larger placed transversely 

 across the base, and a common much larger triangular patch (its 

 apex pointing forward) about the middle of the suture. 



North Queensland. 



DOTICUS. 



This genus is unsatisfactorily close to Arceocerus. Its author 

 (Mr. Pascoe) says that it differs from Arceocerus by the greater 

 length of its front legs, the greater width of its tarsi and the 

 deeper insertion of the third tarsal joint in the second. To this it 

 may be added that (so far as my experience goes) the species with 

 the legs of Doticus are considerably larger than any with the legs 

 of Arceocerus. Nevertheless I am of opinion that the generic 

 distinction of the two cannot be maintained. I have before me 

 a specimen which is certainly I think D. palmaris, Pasc. 

 Metadoticus, Olliff, seems to be quite indistinguishable from- 

 Doticus. The name used by Olliff seems to have been suggested 

 by the author of Doticus, and yet there is nothing in his diagnosis 

 to distinguish it from that of Doticus, nor does he mention 

 Doticus, bat compares Metadoticus to JEthneca, with which 

 Doticus has so little connection that it would be hard to find two- 



