86 Australian Blattid(v. rvr*'vv^"i' 



Vol. xxxill. 



AUSTRALIAN BLATTID.^.— Part II. 



On the Type of Ischnoptera brunneonigra, Tepper, with 

 A Description of the Male Insect. 



By Eland Shaw, M.R.C.S., F.E.S., &c. 



[Read before the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, i ith Sept., 1916.) 



In 1895 Mr. J. G. O. Tepper described this species from a ?, and 

 there is some doubt as to where his type is, as the National 

 Museum, Melbourne, and the South Australian Museum, 

 Adelaide, each regard their specimen as such. 



The facts appear to be that in 1895 the National Museum, 

 Melbourne, sent some BlattidcC to Mr. Tepper, of the South Aus- 

 tralian Museum, for determination, and these, with the excep- 

 tion of some duplicates which he retained, were returned, with 

 his labels attached, but in only one case {Paratemnopteryx 

 blatt aides, S)^ was the word " type " placed on any of the labels. 



In his paper dealing with these specimens, in the Trans. Roy. 

 Soc. S. Aiisf., 1895, pp. 146-166, Mr. Tepper placed the words 

 " Nat. Mus., Melb." after his description of each species of 

 the Victorian collection, and the Melbourne Museum naturally 

 asumed that he had in all cases used the returned specimens 

 as his types. However, in 1915, after he had left the South 

 Australian Museum, Mr. Tepper, at the request of the Museum, 

 re-examined the whole of the species he had named, and 

 marked the types and co-types as such ; and amongst the 

 Blattidre he marked as his types five specimens originally 

 included in those sent by the National Museum. Melbourne, 

 and dealt with in his 1895 paper. These were : — 



No. 20. — Apolyta pallescens, Tepp. (sex unstated). 



No. 29. — Apolyta marginata, Tepp., ^. 



No. 44. — Apolyta marginata, Tepp., ?. 



No. 19. — Ischnoptera brunneonigra, Tepp., ?. 



No. 3. — Choristima kershawi, Tepp., $. 



It is imfortunate that Mr. Tepper did not select his types 

 at the time he described his species, and I think it possible 

 that he originally regarded the Melbourne specimens as the 

 types of these four species, but that a lapse of memory, after 

 twenty years, brought ai)out his marking the Adelaide speci- 

 mens as such. 



In his paper above referred to, Mr. Tepper, on p. 146, says, 

 with reference to the Victorian collection : — " The rare types 

 of the latter are in the National Museum. Melbourne, when 

 uniq-ue ; the remainder also represented in the S.A. Museum." 



There is room for a difference of opinion as to his precise 

 meaning, but I do not think he meant that some of the types 

 were returned to Melbourne and some retained in Adelaide. 



