Hairy Red-headed Darkling Beetle

Size 7mm. Found in a spent lemon flower, having its head deeply buried in. I found a perfect picture match for this animal in ALA, naming it Tenebrionidae. ALA crashed repeatedly when trying to open the link. Not a good reward for navigating past museum photos for a long time in order to see the pictures something can actually be seen. Well, so I matched the animal to a type species. Neither the genus nor the species are well represented on the web in terms of pictures. Actually, the binominal can not be found. I am curious what the correct identification would be but can't spend more time trying to find out. For now, Homotrysis rufocoerulea seems a decent working identification. Update: Just after publishing I found another perfect match. I can say now with confidence that this species is actually Homotrysis rubocoerulea. Despite a typo in Ommatophorus in http://www.brisbaneinsects.com/brisbane_beetles/Tenebrionidae.htm and a dramatically differing size, I managed to find another type specimen picture. The colours have faded away, but based on the same species name I am quite confident it is the same species (that is waiting to be updated). It is a great feeling to resolve a taxon and a slight confusion in Australian Museum collection that obscures a proper identification. For the moment, I stick to my chosen English name, even if Dark Green and Brown Beetle used by http://www.brisbaneinsects.com is not far fetched. Update 26/3/2017: Original description seems to be published by Carter 1920. It seems to have become a synonym of Ommatophorus rufocoeruleus (Carter, 1920). ALA has both taxa but never linked them. Typo in Brisbane Insects Webpage has gone. To further complicate matters: my photos show the same species as Brisbane Insects. Nine antennae segments. Request was sent to ALA to clarify synonymy of Homotrysis rubocoerulea with Ommatophorus rufocoeruleus today. Update 28/3/2017: The basionym can be found at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/111685#page/224/mode/1up on page 206-207. It is still unclear when and where this species was reassigned. In 2012, we find a publication adding two new species into this taxonomic group (Alleculinae), pointing out the mess but not doing anything about it. Why add to the mess and even creating a new genus while it is unclear what the old ones are? Morphological science autism in action! Before I forget: nice description by Carter and closely matching my specimen. Well, the elytra rather had a blueish shimmer than being blue. Type localities were Richmond (inland Townsville) and Cairns District. Red base of femora match, as well as red underside, head, prothorax. Last but not least: I am totally impressed with the speed ALA has reacted to my flag. Synonymy has been erected within less than two days. Thank you! Hopefully, I did not mislead (as one might assume when continuing to read). I could have saved myself some time, too, because ALA now even give the quote where to find the original description (unfortunately without link to BHL). The type specimen of Homotrysis rufocoerulea with the typical red colouration does not show under this taxon any more but has advanced to type specimen for the Homotrysis genus - which as a non-expert I believe is highly problematic. The Homotrysis genus was obviously erected by Pascoe in 1866. I assume (based on its former unlinked status) that the type specimen was reassigned and the specimen we can see - and which corresponds to my photos - is a lectotype (or whatever this is called). If done so properly, and assumed nobody has done further work in this area, we'd actually have to drop Ommatophorus rufocoeruleus as a junior synonym (it can't be both IMO), maybe even the genus Ommatophorus since it is younger than Homotrysis. Of course, these are lay speculations. For now, I am happy and am hoping ALA will quickly fill in some confirmed representative photo records from living specimens. Happy to provide my photos, but would prefer some professionals to provide theirs.