162 



Anthribidce much less allied to each other than they are. Olliff's 

 species (the too common Metadoticus pestilens) is quite unmistak- 

 able and the insect generally called by that name agrees so per- 

 fectly with Olliff's somewhat full specific description that it 

 seems impossible we can be mistaken in our identification of 

 M. pestilens. I can find no generic distinction between M. pestilens 

 and the insect mentioned above as D. palmaris. 

 D. cequalipennis, sp. nov. Late ovalis ; piceus, pube brunnea 

 maculatim vestitus ; supra confertim subtilissime subaspere 

 punctulatus ; prothorace minus fortiter transverso, antror- 

 sum a basi arcuatim fortiter angustato, sequali ; elytris 

 sequalibus, striatis, striis sat fortiter nee crebre punctulatis, 

 interstitiis planis. Long., 3J 1.; lat., If 1. 

 The head is entirely covered with bright brown pubescence 

 except a longitudinal vitta of dark brown pubescence on either 

 side of the middle ; the pronotutn is confusedly variegated with 

 bright brown pubescence on the piceous derm ; on the elytra the 

 piceous derm is variegated by bright brown pubescence arranged 

 longitudinally on the interstices, the pubescence being continuous 

 (on the specimen before me, which is evidently not at all abraded) 

 on the front one fifth part of most of the inner seven interstices 

 and nearly so on about the hinder half of the inner five inter- 

 stices, but on the rest of the interstitial surface it takes the form 

 of small square spots ; where the pubescence is not of bright 

 brown colour it is scarcely less dense, but is of the colour of 

 the derm ; that of the under surface is uniformly of a pale 

 ashy colour. This species seems to agree absolutely with 

 D. palmaris, Pasc, and M. pestilens, Oil., in its structural charac- 

 ters. It is very distinct from both, as a species, owing to the 

 even surface of its pronotum and elytra. 



Queensland ; sent to me by Mr. G. Masters as No. 77. 



ARiEOCERUS. 



This o-enus is somewhat numerously represented in Australia, 

 although no species of it have yet been recorded in Australia in 

 such fashion as to be capable of confident identification. In 

 1835 Boisduval published a diagnosis consisting of nine words of 

 Anihribus sambucinus, which he thought might be a variety of 

 Anthribus coffees, Fab., and the latter (according to Lacordaire) 

 is identical with Arceocerus fasciculatus, De Geer. Doubtless 

 therefore A. sambucinus is an Arceocerus and it now stands in 

 our Catalogues as a variety of A. fascicidatus. I have not 

 access to De Geer's description of A. fasciculatus, but I know 

 the insect as a Hawaiian Arceocerus that the eminent Coleop- 

 terist Dr. Sharp named for me. I have examples from 

 tropical Queensland of an Arceocerus that I cannot separate 



