2 [January, 



believes, has been wrongly identified, but before considering that more 

 fully it is desirable to deal with the generic term. 



The first genus specially described for an}^ member of the Amyc- 

 teridae was by Fischer von Waldheim in the Mem. Soc. Imp. Nat. 

 Moscou, vi, 1823. pp. 265, 266. This description has not been accessible 

 in Australia and it is therefore Avell to reproduce it here, which I am 

 able to do by the aid of Mr. Champion, who has been so kind as to 

 copy it for me. 



" PhaJidura mirahilis MacLeay. 

 Titul. fig. ir. 



Genus Phalidiirae sane mirabi/f, rtd Ciirciiliom'fes pertinens, rostro gnudet 

 abbrevidto obtnso, aperto, labro nullo adparente ita ut oiumdibulae fortes, latae, 

 triangulares, inclinatae, rostri psittacini ad instar, in conspectnm veniant, 

 Jteliquae partes individuu meo dejicere videntnr. Mentiim adpendicem triangu- 

 hirem hahet. Antennae fractae 7-articidis liberis, sed articuli clavae ohiongae, 

 apice acnminntae ita sunt adproximatae, ut numerus eorum eerie oculis meis 

 oceultetur. Pili parui, per quatuor series disposi/i, quatuor etiam articulos 

 suspicari sinunt. Pli. tola iiijira, supra variolosa. 



Hah. Nova HoLLA^'DIA." 



This diagnosis and the mention of mirahilis MacLeay as the type 

 settle the question as to how the name must be applied. 



In the Munich catalogue of Coleoptera, Vol. viii, 1871, Gemminger 

 and Harold altered Fischer's name to PsaJidura, and this has since been 

 used, but it cannot be accepted, as it amounts to the replacement of an 

 old name by a newer one, Phalidnra and Psalidura being quite distinct 

 words. 



I have already mentioned that among the fii'st described species of 

 Amycferidae was the Curcnlio mirahilis of Kirb}^ and it has been taken 

 for granted that this is the type of the genus Phalidi/ra. Dr. Ferguson 

 has, however, pointed out that there is good reason for believing that 

 MacLea}" was wrong in his identification of Kirb3''s insect, and on 

 referring to Kirby's description and figure I think there can be no 

 doubt that he is correct. Neither of these is applicable to MacLeay's 

 " mi7'ahilis,''^ but they are fairly congruous with an insect of the 

 -impressa-grouY). P. iuqrressa is the commoner of the Australian large 

 Phalidurae, and in an extensive old collection that came into my 

 possession there is a male of im^ressa bearing the label "P. mirahilis 

 Kirby, iinjrressa Boisduv.," and another short series of the same species 

 with the general label " P. mirahilis Kirby, Tasmania." I have little 

 doubt that if Kirby's type can be found it will prove to be the common 

 Australian and Tasnianian species usually known as inipre^sa Boisd., 



