324 REVISION OF THE CICTNDELIDjE OP AUSTRALIA, 



the prosternum as in M. basalis; lateral carina longer. The 

 elytra have a similar pattern. Its general appearance and facies 

 is that of M. crucigera Macl., which sometimes has the anchor- 

 shaped mark of the elytra equally large, but it differs by the 

 abdomen not testaceous along sides to the posterior coxae, 

 piceous-black in the middle to and including the fourth segment; 

 left mandible in £ not bifurcated towards apex, &c. The 

 metepisterna resemble those of M. crucigera, being flat and 

 rugulose, hardly widely and feebly concave posteriorly [in M. 

 basalis the metepisterna are decidedly concave posteriorly; in M* 

 bostocki Cast., (? = M. excisilatera SI.) they have a deep pit or 

 concavity]. In M. intermedia the antennae are wholly testaceous 

 as in M. crucigera, not with basal joints fusco-maculate as in M. 

 basalis and M. bostocki. This species has also a slight emargina- 

 tion of the inflexed margin of the elytra opposite the third 

 ventral segment, a feature which becomes conspicuous in M. 

 bostocki but is wanting in M. basalis. The apical border of the 

 elytra is minutely serrulate, a character I have only noticed in 

 M. humeralis Macl., and M. scapularis Macl., among our species. 



Megacephala bostocki Castlenau. 



In his "Index" Dr. Horn follows M Fleutiaux (whose idea 

 of M. (Tetracha) basalis Macl., included M. (Tetracha) excisi- 

 latera SI., in considering M. {Tetracha) bostocki Cast., as synony- 

 mous with M. basalis Macl.; but, for reasons given below, I 

 cannot concur in this synonymy, and therefore regard M. bostocki 

 Cast., as a good species under which I believe Tetracha excisi- 

 latera SI., must be placed. The Rev. Thomas Blackburn has 

 informed me that he had considered as M. (Tetracha) bostocki 

 Cast., the species which I described under the name T. excisilatera; 

 and subsequent consideration of the original description of 

 T. bostocki inclines me so strongly to accept Mr. Blackburn's 

 opinion that I now adopt it, though it is a question that cannot 

 be absolutely settled, except by examination of Castlenau's type 

 of T. bostocki, or by collecting at Nickol Bay. Castlenau's 

 description of T. bostocki, poor as it is, contains two points that 



