690 REVISION OF THE AMYCTERIDES, iv., 



alternus must be used, as T. Riverinm is already preoccupied. 

 The type of S. mucronatas has been mislaid, but I think the 

 species will prove to be synonymous with S. tuberculosus. 



In accordance with my plan, I have endeavoured to redescribe 

 Macleay's species from the types; owing to alterations in the 

 Macleay Museum, I have been unable to do this in all cases, and 

 I have been compelled to redescribe several from my own speci- 

 mens, all of which, however, have been compared with the types. 



Pascoe (Journ. Linn. Soc, xii., 1873) described, as new, five 

 species of Sclerorinus — S. tceniatus, S. marginatus, S. echinops, 

 S. meliceps, and S. molestus; also, as a Talaurinus, 7'. molossus, a 

 species which I would refer to Sclerorinus. Of these species, S. 

 tceniatus = »S'. Stewarti Macl. ; S. marginatua = S. suhlineatus 

 Germ.; while S. echinops appears to belong to Talaurinus. S. 

 molossus and .S". molestus belong to the sahiilosus-grou^^ while 

 S. meliceps from Queensland is unknown to me. 



Sloane (Trans. Koy. Soc. S. Aust.,xvi.), among the Amycterini 

 of the Elder Expedition, described three species of Sclerorinus 

 — S. Elderi, S. occidentalism and S. angustipennis, the types of 

 which have been kindly lent to me for examination by the 

 authorities of the South Australian Museum; they are all dis- 

 tinct species of the sahulosus-gYon^. S. Elderi is most nearly 

 allied to S. molossus Pasc, while ^S". occidentalis and »S. angusti- 

 pennis are closely allied, inter se, and come nearest to *S'. molestus. 

 In addition to these, Sloane {loc. cit.) described several species of 

 Talaurinus^ some of which certainly appear to be more at home 

 in Sclerorinus. Of these, Blackburn (Report of the Horn Exped., 

 Part ii., p. 291) has referred T. convexus to Sclerorinus. I would 

 also refer T. insiynis and T. noctis to the same genus. Of the 

 true position of 1\ obscurus, I have considerable doubt. Mr. 

 Sloane regarded it as closely allied to 6". convexus and the other 

 two species, and the general structure is very similar; but the 

 rostral characters are certainly more suggestive of Talaurinus 

 than Sclerorinus, whereas, in the other three species, the reverse 

 is the case. Unfortunately, the type is a female, and at present 

 remains the unique example of the species known; the discovery 

 of the male would probably throw light on its position. I believe 



