BY EUSTACE W. FERGUSON. 37 



ate, or conjoined to fomi a short ridge, the central ones somewhat exserted, the 

 penultimate larger, obliquely set and overhanging the posterior constriction; 

 lateral tubercles as in ,4. marsliami. Elytra with a row of large granules along 

 suture, most evident at base, granules indistinct on other intei-stices ; with stronger 

 tubercles than in A. marsliami ; tirst row with 7 — 8, second with 6 — 7, more closely 

 placed and extending farther down declivity, third row with 4; humeral tubercle 

 small, but distinct. Ventral segments coarsely strigose. cancellate-punctate, the 

 intermediate segments being strigose as well as the apical. Legs simple; pos- 

 terior tai-si with tirst joint longer and more slender than in A. manthami. 



S. Broader than male; prothorax with two anterior median tubercles .sep- 

 arate, the other tubercles larger than in female of ^1. marsliami ; elytra with a 

 distinct row of ari-anules along second intei-stice, with tubercles smaller than in J, 

 but larger than in ? of A. marsliami, 8, 9, and 5 in number; ventral surface more 

 convex. Dimensions: c?. 17 x 6 mm.; 9. 19 ^ 7 mm. 



Hah. — N.S. Wales: Blue Mountains. 



This species is not uncommon at Rlackhentli. but I have not seen it from else- 

 where. It may be easily recognised by the sculiJture of the ventral segments, 

 which is more strigose than in any other species of the marsliami gToup. 



ACANTHOLOPHUS ECHIXATUS. 



The question of what species is to be regarded as A. ecliinatiis is very much 

 involved. 



The use of the name firet appears in Dejean's Catalogue, 1st ed., p. 64. 

 I have not seen this work and know of the quotation only from later authors. 

 The name as here used appears to be merely a nom^n nudum, but it is placed as a 

 synon^nn of A. marsliami T^irhy in Masters' Catalogue (No. 4848). 



Guerin-Meneville in the Voyage de la Coquille, ii.. p. 122. described a species 

 of Acantlwlophm as A. echinatus, and a Sydney species has hitherto been regard- 

 ed as Guerin's species, with the description of which it agi-ees fairly well, and 

 Port Jackson was given as the locality by Guerin. Unfortunately I have been 

 unable to discover the date of publication of Guerin's species. Volume ii. was 

 liublished as a whole in 1838, according to the date on the introduction, though 

 the title page beare the date 1830. It is certain that the work was first published 

 in parts or livraisons. and Sherborne and Woodward (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.. (7), 

 vii., 1901, p. 391), give the date of publication of this part as 1831. This can 

 hardly be correct, as in his remarks on the genus Acantliolophus, Guerin quotes 

 the date at which he was actually writing as 15 December, 1833. The species 

 tlierefore could not have been published before 1834, and was possibly iiublishcd 

 later still. In 1835 Boisduval in the Voy. de I'Astrolabe. ii., p. 369, i^ublished the 

 description of another Acantliolophus echinatus. The description itself is useless, 

 but at the end Boisduval stated that specimens were in the Dejean Collection and 

 in the National Museum. The specimen in the Dejean Collection, which is now 

 in the Brussels Museum, was examined some years ago and proved to be the 

 same as A. mucronatiis Macl. There is also a species labelled as the type of A. 

 echinatus in the Museum d'histoire naturelle in Paris, wMch I have also seen and 

 which is certainly .1. aureolus Macl. I'litil recently I was under the imjiression 

 that this was the type of .1. echinatus Guerin, but unfortunately T omitted to 

 make a copy of the labels attached to the specimen, and it is possible that it is the 

 specimen of A. echinatus Boisd., stated to be in the Museum national. Against it 

 being regarded as Guerin's species are the facts that it does not conform to 



