482 REVISION OF THE AUSTRALIAN SPECIES OF BOLBOCERAS, 



specimens the sex of which cannot be determined without dis- 

 section. This is especially the case with a numerous group of 

 very small species, in which either there is very little external 

 difference between the sexes or the difference^ between the sexes 

 is of a kind that leads to the supposition of the two sexes being 

 distinct species. I have ascertained with tolerable certainty that 

 the former is the case with at least two species of the group in 

 question, and therefore have assumed it to be so with the others 

 (having no evidence to the contrary), but I cannot overlook the 

 possibility that some Bolbocerata which I treat as distinct specifi- 

 cally may eventually prove to be so only sexually. 



In Masters' Catalogue 39 names are given as having been 

 applied to Australian species of Bolboceras, 8 of which are quoted 

 as synonyms. Of the 31 species enumerated as valid all but four 

 appear to me entitled to stand without question. B. Kirbii, 

 Westw., is, however, probably a variety of B. proboscideum, 

 Schreib., as West wood himself remarks in a footnote added when 

 the description was already in type (Trans. Linn. Soc. Vol. xxi. 

 p. 13), and in any case Kirbii was doubly a nom. prseocc, B. 

 Eeichei, Guer. (male), having been redescribed under that name 

 (Kirbii) by Hope (Proc. Ent. Soc. 1841, p. 43), and also by a 

 singular coincidence under the same name again (this time the 

 female) by Bainbridge (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1 842, p. 79). B. piuicticolUy 

 Macl., appears to me to be identical with B. taurus, Westw.: I 

 can find no material difference between the two descriptions 

 except that Westwood gives the size as long, 8 lines and Macleay 

 as long, 6J lines. I have seen specimens of the former size, but 

 none smaller than 7J1. The size of the cephalic horns is subject 

 to considerable variation. 



B. quadricorne, Klug, judged by the description, must be open 

 to suspicion of identity with frontale, Guer. I have, unfortu- 

 nately, no access to Klug's figure of his insect, and therefore can 

 suggest the synonymy only with hesitation. Westwood says that 

 he had not seen quadricorne. The other name that seems open to 

 suspicion is that of co?'07iatiini, Klug, the description of which 

 reads very much like that of the insect that Westwood described 



