BY EUSTACE W. FERGUSON. 75 



anterior and posteiior pairs, but on a somewhat lower plane. These specimens 

 at first sight might be regarded as belonging at least to a distinct variety, but 

 they are connected by intermediate forms. There is also in some specimens a 

 tendency for the second tubercle of the posterior pair to become obsolete. Com- 

 parison with A. hlackbu.rni shows tliat the two anterior tubercles and the fii-st of 

 the ijosterior pair coiTespond to the tliree tubercles present in most species; the 

 middle tubercle in the Cue specimens corresponds to the small gi-anule seen at the 

 base of the median tubercle in other species. 



The position of A. iiiaximus Macleay is open to considerable discussion. 

 Macleay described it as a species of Cuhicorrhynchus and subsequent authors have 

 allowed it to remain in that genus . Lea regarded it as congeneric with Molochtus 

 gagates Pasc, and placed the latter species under Cubicorrhynchus. 



In its general appearance and sculpture maximus undoubtedly resembles both 

 Cubicorrhynchus and Molochtus, but I cannot regard it as congeneric with either. 

 The reasons for maintaining Molochtus as a vahd genus I have already given and 

 the characters laid down exclude maximus. From Cubicorrhynchus it is separated 

 by the deep concavity of the rostinim. 



I regard it as unquestionably congeneric with Acantholophus granulatus Sloane 

 and .4. blackburni Ferg. (= A. simplex Blaekb.) though neither Sloane nor 

 Blackburn referred to this species in their observations. 



If the two latter species are allowed to remain in Acantholophus then 

 mclximus must be placed there too. 



