BY H. J. CARTER. 237 



Liciiiotna. Daedrosis, Bri/eopia aud Diiioria. 



Pasooe's genera were insiifliciently defiiu'd, while be omitted Daedrosis t'rora 

 his tabulation of the group* tiiougii Bates's genus was published some six months 

 earlier. Of Diiiaria its author stated "very similar to Brycopla and only to be 

 distinguished by the pihise tarsi." Of this distinction Mr. Blair writes "on an 

 examination of the types I fail to perceive." My own specimens, gummed on 

 cards, had not hitlierto been critically examined ; but having now closely examined 

 73. picta Pasc. and B. piloseUa Pasc. under a Zeiss binocular, I cannot separate 

 them on this tarsal <-haracter. lioth showing hairs together with a short 

 tomentum. It is clear, tlierefore, that the name Dinoria should be sunk as a 

 synonym. From a specimen sent from the British Museum it is certain that B. 

 diemenensis Cart, is the same species as T). coelioides Pasc. Of the latter Mr. Blair 

 writes "the type is from Queensland though we have 8 specimens from Tasmania, 

 and one from K. George's Sound." I thiid'C that the Queensland and Western 

 Australian localities are prol)ably label mistakes, the species of Bri/copia being, 

 in general, localised; though I have one species.. B. minuta Lea, from Sydney, 

 Mulwala (Vic), and Barossa (South Australia). I had always been puzzled 

 over D. coelioides, and my difficulty was enhanced by the fact that another species 

 from Tasmania, described below as B. hexai/oiia, has. in the form of the pro- 

 thorax, a much closer affinity to D. picta than the real D. coelioides. 



A close re-exaniination of all the species of Daedrosis and Licinoma avail- 

 able, in conjunction with Bates's very detailed generic description, has had a some- 

 what disturbing effect on my previous ideas, which had been formed on a too 

 prominent consideration of what now apjtear to me as secondary characters, 

 antennae and sculjiture. My predecessor Blackburn evidently held similar views, 

 since the two insects he described as Daedrosis are both Licinoma, and indeed one 

 of them, D. rictoriae, is a synonym of L. iiitida Pasc, the genotype of Licinoma. 

 Mr, Blair's note on this is "L. nitida Pasc. is certainly generic with Blackburn's 

 (ypc of Daedrosis rictoriae .... and in my opinion victoriae should not be more 

 than a var. of nitida (the puncturation of the thorax is a little coarser and less 

 regular.") The two genera are to be distinguished as follows: — 



Daedrosis. Licinoma. 



Protliorax. Emarginate at apex; sides .\ot emarginate at apex: sides entire. 



crenulate . 

 Hidiicii. Prominently dentiform. Rounded. 



Other characters which differentiate the great majority of species lie in the 

 antennae, tarsi, sculpture and clothing. Tn Daedrosis the antennal joints are 

 round and coarse with an unusually large terminal joint. In Liciaoma the joints 

 are obeonic or triangular with terminal joint of moderate size. Concerning the 

 tarsal joints. Bates states (under Daedrosis) "The comparative length of the first 

 and last joints of the posterior tarsi does not appear to be a character possessing 

 any generic value. In TJioracopherus [now Cardiothora.r] the first joint is longer, 

 equal to, or shorter tlian the last, according to the species, and even, I believs, 

 according to the sex." I have just examined both sexes of 16 species, including 

 7 species of that author, and find in ereri/ case that the first joint is longer than 

 the la.st. Again it would appear that this comparative leng-th of joints is a 

 generic test. In Daedrosis (i.e. in the species included below), also generally in 



• Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.. (4), iii., 1869, p. 133. 



