On the Insects of Australia allied to the Glaphyrid<B, by 

 William MacLeay, Junr., Esq., M.L.A. 



[Read 1st June, 1863.] 



The genus Phyllotocus of Fischer contains a number of species 

 which, though they agree in habit and other characters, differ 

 considerabl}'' in important parts of their anatomy. 



That such differences shovild have been hitherto overlooked 

 in a group somewhat homogeneous is, however, less a matter 

 of sui^prise than that Insects, so completely anthobious in habit 

 and structure, should be placed by authors among so phyllopha- 

 gous a family as the Mslolonthidce. 



I find that Dejean, Blauchard, Burmeister, Erichsen, and 

 Lacordaire, all unite in placing Phyllotocus near Serica, 

 Dtphucephala, Liparetrus, and other undoubtedly phyllophagous 

 genera. 



To oppose the opinion of such distinguished Naturalists may 

 appear presumptuous on my part ; but it cannot be said that 

 Phyllotocus is in any very immediate connexion with the 

 MelolonthidoB. In Phyllotocus, the maxillae are membranaceous 

 and penicillate, and in some instances, even the membrana- 

 ceous rudiment of the external lobe is wanting. In the Mslolon- 

 thidce they are always corneous and toothed. In fact the former 

 is in every respect anthobious, i.e. living in flowers : while the 

 others are as decidedly phyllophagous. It appears to me that 

 the link between the two groups must be looked for among the 

 insects alhed to Hoplia, since the teeth on the maxillae of some 

 of such genera, indicate a phyllophagous tendency. 



The strongest point of resemblance to the Melolonthidce in 

 Phyllotocus is the transverse suture which divides the clypeus 

 from the forehead ; but that, though perhaps a constant character 

 of the Melolonthidre, is also to be .found in Amphicoma and other 

 genera of Glaphyridce. 



I believe, therefore, that I am justified in asserting that so far 

 from Phyllotocus being properly classed with the Mvlolonthidce, 



H 



