470 DRAG0VFLIE8 FROM AUSTRALIA AND TASMANIA, 



Queensland," and was described in 1868. In 1886, de Selj's 

 added, under the same name, tlie descriptions of two complete 

 males, one from Sydney and another from Queensland. Now the 

 large, common species, so conspicuous for its brilliant metallic 

 fjreen colouring, which at present passes in all collections as S. 

 wpycrsi, is found very abundantly in many localities in Victoria 

 and New South Wales, but never, so far as I know, in Queensland. 

 In the latter State, two smaller, much rarer, and much less con- 

 spicuous species occur, which closely resemble the Southern form 

 in general colouring, but can at once be distinguished from it on 

 good morphological grounds. Further, one of these species ex- 

 tends southwards down the coastline, and can be taken in the 

 Sydney district, though much more rarely than the commoner 

 and larger species. 



We have, therefore, three possibilities : — 



(1) The three specimens described by de Selys may all belong- 

 to one species, and the locality-labels may all be correct. In 

 that case, one would naturally expect that species to be the one 

 that occurs in Queensland and also extends down the coastline 

 to Sydney. 



{'!) The three specimens may all belong to one species, but the 

 locality-labels may not all be correct. (Wrong locality-labels are 

 not unknown in the case of specimens sent from Australia in 

 early days, ^.(/., the tropical Hydrohas'ileuA hrpvistylus was sent 

 home labelled both "Melbourne" and "Sydne}'," though it does 

 not occur within hundreds of miles of either locality). Under 

 such a supposition, one would admit the probabilitj' of the three 

 specimens belonging to the common large Southern species. 



(3) The three specimens ma}' not all belong to the same species, 

 even though de Selys considered them to be so. 



As the original type-female, in the de Selys Collection at 

 Brussels, cannot now be studied, we have to fall back upon de 

 Selys' description, and try to find in it evidence as to which form 

 is really the original *S'. weyersi of de Selys. There are three 

 points in this description which seem to me to point definitely to 

 the fact that de Selys' original female belonged to the common 



