BY H. J. CARTER. 79 



Hope's note " it may be considered at a future period as forming 

 a subgenus " seems to show that h did not know the two species 

 described by de Breme, notwithstanding his reference to de 

 Breme's monograph, and the statement that " several of the 

 species were described from my coll." since the figures given by 

 Breme would show the .strong likeness. Moreover, there is an 

 evident error in the dimensions given by Hope as " Long. lin. 9^, 

 lat. lin. 3|," while the figure (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1848) shows an 

 insect 9^ x 6 lines (by taking the length as the standard). The 

 above specimens A and B are therefore 9 and ^ of the species 

 which must be known as .S'. gagates Breme. 



S. Macleayi Pasc. = .S'. tricostdlus White. — Mr, Gahan has had 

 the Hope type sent from Oxford to compare with the Pascoe and 

 White types in the British Museum. It is evident, both from Mr. 

 Gahan's information and fromWhite's description (Grey's Travels, 

 App. p. 464) that de Breme was mistaken in his identification of 

 S. tricontelhis White. The first words of White's description are 

 " Much larger than B. gihbosus, of a dirty brown, glossed, the 

 wide margin of elytra flat." Here are three statements which 

 apply to S. Macleayi Pasc, but not to S. tricostellus Breme. Mr. 

 Gahan writes, " S. contractus Hope, is not the same as S. trico- 

 stellus White. It is much smaller, darker or more strongly 

 chitinised; diifers a good deal in shape of pronotum " (a rough 

 sketch of each is sent). " The species figured by Breme as S. 

 tricostellas White, looks very much more like S. contractus Hope, 

 and Breme's (S*. rotundatus has, in the figure, a form very like 

 that of S. tricostellus White, but is much smaller. *S'. Macleayi, 

 Pasc, comes nearer to S. tricostellus White, than does S. con- 

 tractus, but is somewhat more oblong and less rounded in form " 

 [aS'. Macleayi Pasc, is often much rounded. H J.C.]. " I think 

 it possible that S. rotundatus is only a small S. tricostellus. Our 

 biggest S. tricostellus is 24 x 20 mm. I feel coafident, however, 

 that .S'. contractus Hope, is distinct from S. tricostellus White, 

 but it appears to be S. gagates Breme, and S. tricostellus Breme 

 {nee White)." From this it is evident (1) That .S'. tricostellus 

 White, was not correctly identified by de Breme. (2).b'. Macleayi 



