BY THOMAS G. SLOANE. 



149 



known till 1858, when Bohemann described C. australasice. from 

 Sydney. In 1862 M. Putzeys published his " Postscriptum," in 

 which he described four new Australian species. It may be noted 

 that of these four species, all founded on unique specimens, three, 

 viz., C. elegans, C. attrata, and C. suturalis, never seem to have 

 turned up again; as will be seen from my notes on them, I suspect 

 a possibility of the identity of two of them with subsequently 

 described and known species. In 1863 Sir William Macleay 

 described two Scarilides from N.S. Wales as Ceratoglossa foveiceps 

 and C. rugiceps; these are species of Clivina, but both have 

 to be dropped out of the Australian list for reasons stated below. 

 In 1866 Putzeys published a Revision of the? Australian species 

 of Clivina, including descriptions of thirteen new Australian 

 species — these descriptions he afterwards embodied in the 

 " Revision Generale." I do not think it will be easy, if indeed 

 possible, ever to identify C. jtwenis, C. prominens, and 0. 

 verlicalis. In 1867 Putzeys published his " Revision Genei'ale," 

 describing four new Australian species; and also he received 

 for description the whole of Count Castelnau's collection of 

 Glivinides, among which he found fourteen species of Clivina from 

 A ustralia to describe as new; of these I have been able to identify 

 six. Between 1868 and 1873 Putzeys added three species to our 

 list, all of which are known to me. After 1873 no more species 

 of Australian Clivina were described till 1889, when the Rev, 

 Thos. Blackburn described nine new species, and since that date 

 he has described three additional species, bringing the number 

 known from Australia up to fifty-two. I have now thirtj^-one to 

 add, making a total of eighty-three species for Australia, a number 

 which I expect to be largely augmented when the continent has 

 been more carefully searched for these insects. 



A few words on size and colour in reference to distinguishing 

 species of the genus Clivina from one another will not be out of 

 place. M. Putzeys seeins to have regarded slight difFei'ences in 

 size as of more than legitimate value in determining closely allied 

 species, vide his descriptions of C.juvenis, C. lepida and C. ruhripes, 

 which are not decidedly differentiated among themselves or from 



