56 
stated that the “second joint is concealed and the third slightly 
longer than the second, second to tenth subequal, eleventh 
I suspect this means that the fourth is slightly 
species before me. The colourin 
in all the examples I have seen) also differs from that of the tw 
species with which I am comparing it, the black discal patch on 
the elytra Sienna from the inner margin of the external 
while those of Zineatus (male,— not figured by Waterhouse) are 
like Mr. Waterhouse's figure of the antenn® of Trichalus 
Jlavopictus, Waterh. 
Victoria; Dividin 
M. rufipennis, Fab. I fia vd little doubt that Mr. Waterhouse is 
right in thinking (tho ough he is not very confident on the point) 
that his salebrosum is identical with Fabricius' speci 
M. marginatus, Er. T should say there is no RR that 
M. hemorrhoidalis, Waterh., is identical with this species. I 
cannot however agree with Mn Waterhouse (Typ. Br. Mus., Lyc.) 
that his this rem be a colour var. of. rufipennis, Fab. 
The two are aiii closely allied apart from colour ; but 
there is à very marked difference in the antennæ, the pr roduced 
— of each joint beginning with the sixth being in rufipen 
Er much more slender than in hemorrhoidalis pe marginatus, 
r 
CALOCHROMUS. 
C. cucullatus, sp. nov. Sat elongatus; modice convexus; sat 
nitidus (elytris exceptis); elytris pubescentibus; niger, 
el 
prothorace fortiter transverso, antice parum angustato, 
lateribus modice arcuatis, angulis anticis valde obtusis 
postieis (superne visis) fere rotundatis, disco medio profunde 
need sulcato, sulci lateribus valde gibbis (pre- 
rtim postice), disci parte postero-externa valde obtuse 
meh basi parum manifeste 'bisitnate ; elytris costis 
