168 



prosternum as being " latius quam longum." I can really find 

 no very marked character to distinguish Cleptor from Colaspoides 

 except in its eyes being almost without sinuation. M. Lacordaire 

 distinguished the " Edusites " from the " Endocephalites " (con- 

 taining Colaspoides) by the presence in the former of transverse 

 «lytral rugosities, but this distinction is not reliable. M. Lef evre 

 mentions the rugosities as only "generally" present in the 

 former group, M. Lacordaire himself admits that in some Edusites 

 " elles peuvent passer inappercues," and I possess species of 

 Colaspoides in which they are not quite wanting. The groups 

 then (as characterised by M. Lacordaire) cannot be maintained ; 

 nor does M. Lefevre, though accepting the groups, suggest any 

 better distinction. Whether it would be practicable and desir- 

 able to regard Edusa and Colaspoides as the typical genera of 

 two groups (which would have very different contents from those 

 mentioned above) distinguished from each other by the form of 

 the prosternum I must leave to the decision of authors better 

 equipped than I am for studying a large cosmopolitan collection 

 of Eumolpides, but however the genera should be grouped I am 

 convinced that Cleptor ought to stand close to Colaspoides. 

 Along with the examples of Cleptor mentioned above Mr. Jacoby 

 sent me a specimen as Colaspoides xanthopus, Har., which appears 

 to be correctly named, but is certainly, I think, a Cleptor. It is 

 identical with a specimen I received from the Chapuis' collection 

 ticketed " Neotaxis fulgida." I cannot find that Dr. Chapuis 

 ever published such a genus and species. Possibly the genus 

 Cleptor was published at such time as to forestal Neotaxis, — but 

 at any rate it indicates that Dr. Chapuis did not place Harold's 

 insect in Colaspoides. 



The following is a new species of Cleptor. 



C. Haroldi, sp. nov. Glaber, supra cyanescens viridi-micans, 



subtus niger (certo adspectu aureo-vel cupreo micans), anten- 



nis ferrugineis apicem versus obscurioribus, pedibus piceis 



plus minusve rufescentibus ; pronoto crebre subtilius punc- 



tulato, puncturis singulis oblongis ; scutello lsevi ; elytris in 



disco medio crebre fortiter (in ceteris partibus minus crebre 



minus fortiter) vix seriatim punctulatis, pone basin vix 



manifeste impressis, pone humeros certo adspectu transver- 



sim leviter rugatis. Long., 1\ I.; lat., If 1. 



Compared with C. rufimanus, Lef., the pronotum is considerably 



more closely punctulate, with the lateral puncturation much more 



evidently offering a longitudinally rugate appearance, while the 



puncturation of the elytra is much finer near the lateral margins ; 



the form also is notably less convex. Compared with C. inerniis, 



Lef., and xanthopus, Har., inter alia multa there is scarcely any 



indication of a transverse impression near the base of the elytra. 



N. Queensland. 



