BY THE REV. T. BLACKBURN. 419 



of C. cuprijjennis, Hope, to which M. Blessig says it is "extremely 

 close" (I have specimens from Melbourne agreeing with the 

 description of affinis which ai'e certainly vars. of cupripennis) ; 

 G. Ixevlcollis I liave no doubt is identical with cyanipennis, Hope, 

 from which M. Blessig says he can only distinguish it by its 

 being, according to Hope's measurement, a less slender insect. 



As regards the species described by Fabricius, it is unfortunate 

 that we do not know their exact habitats. In the case of one of 

 them (tristis), it seems doubtful whether the habitat is in Aus- 

 tralia. The types of the others are said to have been in Sir 

 Joseph Banks' collection, from which it may be inferred that they 

 Avere collected by Cajjtain Cook's expedition. The descriptions 

 are too brief in most cases for certain identification, amethystinus 

 (owing to its remarkable colouring) being alone capable of confi- 

 dent recognition ; Erotyhhs cupretis is very likely to be identical 

 with a large Chalcopterus from N. Queensland that Mr. French 

 has sent me, and it is probable that Cnodulon bicolor is the same 

 'species as Ghalcopterics (Cnodulon) cujjripennis, Hope. The 

 other species of Fabricius (Helops smaragdulus) I cannot recog- 

 nise in any Amarygvvd that I have seen. 



Fortunately M. Boisduval described only two species. The 

 description of one of them ( Aniarygmios columhinus), consisting 

 of exactly ten words, reads much as if it were founded on the 

 same insect as Chalcoptencs (Cnodulon) cyanipennis, Hope ; that 

 of the other (A. resplendens) consists of thirteen words, and does 

 not suggest any })articular species to my mind ; though reasoning 

 from prohahility (of locality, &c.) would perhaps indicate vinosus, 

 Pasc, as likely to be the subject of the description, and I do not 

 know that there is anything among Boisduval's thirteen words 

 altogether irreconcilable with that supposition; but unless — 

 and until — the types can be examined, Boisduval's Amaryymides 

 ought to be ti'eated as non-existent. 



The two descriptions by Mr. W. S. Macleay in "King's Survey" 

 are not recognisable. 



In respect of the .species published since 1861 — by Mr. Pascoe, 

 Sir William Macleay, and myself — the difliculties are not so great 



