634 STUDIES IX AUSTRALIAN ENTOMOLOGY, NO. X., 



and T. frenchi would find a place in it, and in any case if these 

 species are to be removed from Tetracha it seems to me impossible 

 to consider T. pulchra as more closely allied to species such as T. 

 australasice, Hope, than to T. cylindrica, as is implied by leaving 

 the two former together in a different genus from the last. For 

 these reasons I have not adopted the genus Pseudotetracha. 



Tetracha frenchi, Sloane. 

 Megacephala frenchi, SI., P.L.S.N.S.W. (2), viii. 1893, p. 25. 

 M. Fleutieux has published the opinion that T. frenchi, SI. = T. 

 (Megacephala) howitti, Casteln.,* but I am sure he is mistaken 

 in this. There was formerly in the Howitt Collection at the 

 Melbourne University a specimen labelled Megacephala hoivitti, 

 Casteln., which was evidently one of the two original specimens 

 brought from Cooper's Creek by Mr. A. W. Howitt (the other 

 having been given to M. de Castelnau by Dr. Howitt). f This 

 specimen now appears to be lost, for Mr. C. French, who recently 

 looked for it at my request, could not find it; but I saw it in 

 November, 1893t, and published a note dated 24th January, 1894, 

 recording the great difference in facies between T. (Megacephala) 

 howitti, Casteln., (as represented in the Howitt Collection), and 

 T. frenchi. This note appeared previously to M. Fleutieux's, and 

 was written only to help to re-establish the validity of de 

 Castelnau's species, on which a doubt had been cast by me in my 

 note on T. frenchi. 



In September, 1893, Mr. Zietz brought a Tetracha to Adelaide 

 from Cooper's Creek ; one specimen of this species was sent to 

 me in 1894 by the Rev. Thos. Blackburn, and I recognised it as 

 T. hoivitti, both from de Castelnau's description and my then 

 recent recollection of the species in the Howitt Collection. Mr. 

 Blackburn has written to me in inference to the specimen in the 

 Howitt Collection : — " The specimens of the Callabonna Expedi- 



* Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1895, p. 205; the opinion reiterated in 1896. 



t Vide Castelnau's note, Trans. Hoy. Soc. Victoria, viii. p. 31. 



t P.L.S.N.S.W. (2), viii. 1S93, p. 483. 



