72 



front of that organ. In the first of these secondary aggre- 

 gates the free outline of the clypeus is seen to consist of 

 three distinct lines (the sides and the front), of which the 

 middle (front) line is usually shorter than the others and 

 always notably uneven — either raised as a conspicuous 

 lamina or notched in the middle or dentiform at its extremi- 

 ties. In the genera that I regard as forming the other 

 secondary aggregate the free outline of the clypeus is usually 

 a continuous curve, the appearance of sides and front as three 

 distinct lines being exceptional (scarcely existent outside 

 Dasygnathus and Adoryphorus), but in either case the free 

 outline in its front is level (or all but level, at most slightly 

 sinuous) in the sense of not being raised in any part as a 

 lamina (as in some Isodontes) nor toothed (as in some 

 Isodontes, etc.) nor arched upward (as in various Semanop- 

 teri, etc.) nor notched in the middle (as in Horonoti, etc.). 

 In this secondary aggregate, moreover, the clypeus (when 

 its outline is not a regular curve such that the front can 

 hardly be considered distinct from the sides) is never con- 

 spicuously narrowed in front, its front in no case being much 

 narrower than its base, while in the former secondary aggre- 

 gate the width of the clypeus in front exceeds that of half 

 its width at its base in no genus, I think, except Horonotus, 

 which genus, however, the conspicuous notch in the middle 

 of the front of the clypeus assigns without doubt to the for- 

 mer secondary aggregate. 



Mr. Arrow (Ann. Nat. Hist., 1911, p. 156) proposes a 

 new generic name — Metanastes — for two species, one of 

 which is my Pentodon australis. 



BUPRESTID^E. 



NEOSPADES. 



In his paper on the Classification of the Buprestidce, M. 

 Kerremans placed this genus beside Gisseis — which is cer- 

 tainly its right place — and distinguished it from the latter by 

 its antennae dentate only from the fifth joint, adding a note 

 that he had not seen a member of the genus, and therefore 

 had taken the distinctive character as stated by the author. 

 That character is not, however, the essential one, although 

 the diagnosis of Neospades perhaps justified M. Kerremans in 

 his use of it. In the diagnosis it was stated as a second 

 distinctive character that the 5th antennal joint is the first 

 that is "distinctly" dentate. At the time I had seen only 

 one species of the genus, which I believed with hesitation to 

 be Gorcehus chrysopygius, Germ. I have since seen other 

 species (two of which I have described) and have increased 



