BY THE REV. T. BLACKBURN. 79 



My example of this species is a female, but there can hardly be 

 a doubt of its belonging to the same section (the 2nd) of the genus 

 as P. angulatus, Chaud., to which it is closely allied, though very 

 distinct. Compared with that species the prothorax is wider and 

 not quite so sharply angulated at the sides, which behind the 

 angulation are not in the least sinuate, the hind angles, however, 

 being more obtuse. The juxta-sutural elytral vitta continuous to 

 near the apex and much narrowed behind distinguishes this species 

 from all of the section (angulatus included) except eucalypti (in 

 which, however, the said vitta is much wider in its front part), 

 which inter alia has 5 setse on either side of the prothorax and 

 much more strongly punctured elytra. The bisetose sides of the 

 prothorax, in combination with very finely punctured elytra, 

 which are not unicolorous but bear a narrow dorsal vitta abbre- 

 viated behind and not turned inward towards the suture, will 

 distinguish this insect from all others of the genus independently 

 of sexual characters. I believe it is the first species of Philophloeus 

 with a pattern on the elytra recorded from Western Australia. 



W. Australia ; Yilgarn ; sent to me by C. French, Esq. 



Agonocheila. 



The difficulty of this genus and of Philophloeus is greatly 

 increased by the existence of several descriptions of the most 

 unsatisfactory character, of which all that can be said is that they 

 are very likely to have been founded on a Philophloeus or an 

 Agonocheila, as the case may be, — but it is quite hopeless to refer 

 them to any one in particular unless one could accomplish an 

 examination of the original type, which is quite out of the ques- 

 tion for Australian workers. I see nothing for it but to treat 

 these as non-existent and to accept the risk of redescribing them. 

 In my opinion the author of a sufficient description is perfectly 

 justified in publishing it on the one condition that he do not create 

 a synonym for a species already recognisable by descriptio7i. I fully 

 admit that if an eventual examination of an original type can 

 enable its identity to be satisfactorily proved, its name must have 

 priority against all others whatsoever, — but I hold the author of 



