OniKSTAL CICAJ>I1>.^. 153 



SPECIES DESCEIBED BY WALKER, OF WHICH THE TYPES ABE APPARENTLY 

 NON-EXISTENT AND THE DESCRIPTIONS INSUFFICIENT. 



I liavc already had occasion {mite, p. 41)) to refer to tlie difliculty which appertains to the 

 identification of Walker's species, without reference can be made to the types in the British 

 Museum or elsewhere. The descriptions are often of a misleading nature, being too frequently 

 based on unimportant characters, with an utter absence of generic apprehension, so that at 

 present, without the whole collection is carefully gone through, one cannot tell whether a 

 specimen bears a Walkerian name or not. This is almost equivalent to the case of an 

 ornithologist who, seeking a name for a Shrike, should have to search through the whole 

 order Passercs before he was certain that his species had not been described. I believe in 

 the family Ckadith I have made the study of this unnecessary problem, and the following 

 described species ?, of which the types either do not exist, or have been incorporated — 

 without notice — w'ith other species of which they were synonyms, may be considered as 

 non-existent and unworthy of further notice : — 



1. Cephaloxys unicolor. Walker, List Hom. iv. p. 1132 (1852). Eecorded as from Java. 



2. Dundubia guttigera, Walker, Journ. Linn. Soc, Zool. vol. i. p. 83 (1856). Recorded 



as from Malacca. 



3. Cicada virguncula. Walker, Journ. Linn. Soc, Zool. vol. i. p. 84 (1856). Recorded as 



from Malacca. 



4. Dundubia decern, Walker, Journ. Linn. Soc, Zool. vol. ii. p. 141 (1857). Eecorded 



as from Borneo. 



5. Dundubia duarum. Walker, Journ. Linn. Soc, Zool. vol. ii. p. 141 (1857). Eecorded 



as from Borneo. 



SPECIES WRONGLY ASCRIBED TO THIS FAUNA. 



1. Tibicen auratus. 



OV(/(/(( uumUt, Walker, List Hom. i. p. 215, n. 108 (1850) ; Atkins., J. A. S. Beng. vol. liii. p. 280, n. 72 (1885). 

 Tibicen.' auratus, Atkins., .J. A. S. Beng. vol. Iv. p. 178, n. 6-4 (1886). 



Hab. — Tasmania. 



Walker added no habitat to his description of this species, but simply stated " From 

 Dr. Hooker's collection." This misled Mr. Atkinson, who, in his " Notes on Indian 

 Ehynchota," enumerated the species, and stated "Reported from Assam." 



On referring to the "Record Book" at the British Museum, I found the specimens ou 

 which the species was founded clearly recorded " Purchased at Hooker's sale — from Van 

 Dieman's Land." I have a Tasmauian specimen in my own collection. 



