38 THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 



wood, especially when dry, and consequently we had plenty of 

 hard work to split them, and if results had been at all com- 

 mensurate with our labours we should have done well, but un- 

 fortunately we had no success whatever : not a single specimen of 

 larva or beetle, or even signs of them, did we get. This is the 

 more remarkable as I know of many things that breed on this 

 tree — in fact, my companion had the previous year secured a 

 specimen of the abovenamed beetle just as it was emerging. 

 On several of the Bulokes, feeding on the leaves, were a number 

 of rather large greyish- coloured caterpillars, several of which I 

 brought down, and as in a few days they changed into pupas, I 

 hope to have some results from them. Although, notwith- 

 standing my labours, I got very few specimens of insects, I feel sure 

 that a visit to Logan during the months of November, December, 

 and January would well repay a naturalist. Not being an 

 ornithologist, I cannot say much as to the birds of the district. 

 There were plenty of sparrows, magpies, and of one species of 

 parrot — Platycercus Pennanti, I think. Reptiles I expected to 

 find rather numerous, but I was sadly disappointed. Not a single 

 snake did we see, and I was more than disappointed at not 

 seeing one of the large lizards, Hydrosaufus varius. Neither 

 did we come across the Blue-tongued Lizard. In fact, all we 

 saw were three or four of the common so-called Bloodsucker, 

 Grammatophora, sp., and several of a pretty little Gecko, which I 

 fancy is Gehyra variegata, these latter being found under the dry 

 bark on the lower portions of the steins of the large trees. 



Altogether I enjoyed my ten days' holiday very much. I had 

 fine weather the whole time, and this and the genial hospitality 

 accorded me amply compensated for my lack of success in 

 securing objects of natural history. 



NOTES ON UOLOCIIILA SUBPALLIDUS, Luc, AND 



AREAS MARGIN AT A, Don. 



By Jas. a. Kershaw. 



{Read before the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, llth July, 1898.) 



HOLOCHILA SUBPALLIDUS, LuC. 



As there is some uncertainty regarding this insect, as to whether 

 it should rank as a distinct species or be classed as a 

 synonym of IJolochila erinns, Fab., a few notes on the subject in 

 favour of the former course, the result of a careful comparison of 

 a good series of the former species with both Queensland and 

 Victorian specimens of //. erinus, and also with //. mterens, 

 Rosen., both of which are taken here commonly, may be of 

 interest to our entomological members. 



This species was described by Dr. Lucas in the Proc. Roy. 



