292 Mr. J.8. Baly on the Species of Paropsis. 
Palpi maxillares securiformes. Thorax transversus, antice late emar- 
ginatus, lateribus rotundato-dilatatis, integris vel rarius emarginatis. 
Elytra confuse punctata aut punctato-striata, limbo laterali plus minusve 
dilatato. Pedes robusti; tibiis apice oblique incisis, interdum ante 
apicem angulato-dilatatis, pulvillis linea glabra semper plus minusve 
longitudinaliter divisis ; wnguiculis unidentatis. Prosternum elevatum. 
Mas. Tarsorum anticorum quatuor articulo basali plus minusve dilatato, 
pulvillo integro. 
Fem. Tarsorum anticorum quatuor articulo basali non dilatato. 
According to those who have observed these insects during life, 
they often, more especially the paler species, present brilliant metallic 
colours, which fade entirely away after death; in this respect they 
resemble many species of Cassidide (Aspidomorpha, Coptocycla, and 
true Cassida). 
The distinctive characters between the sexes are well marked, the 
females being always to be known by the presence of a longitudinal 
glabrous line dividing the pulvillus of the basal joint of the four 
anterior tarsi into two divisions. 
Their geographical range is very great: the metropolis of the 
genus is Australia; but the species crop up, although in greatly 
diminished numbers, through the Malay archipelago, China, and 
Siberia, to the eastern confines of Europe, one if not two species 
being natives of that region. By far the greatest number of the 
species contained in our cabinets have been brought from the south- 
ern portion of the Australian continent and from Tasmania; North 
Australia will doubtless, however, when fully explored, yield us an 
equal number of new forms. 
The synonymy of the genus is in a very confused and unsatisfac- 
tory state: most of the descriptions of the older authors (Fabricius, 
Olivier, and others) are so short and incomplete that it is quite im- 
possible at the present day to recognize them; in many instances 
they will fit equally well two or more nearly allied species. Pre- 
eminent, however, for worthlessness are those of Boisduyal in the 
‘ Voyage de l’ Astrolabe’: excepting in two or three instances, where 
the insects present a marked feature or some other character too 
salient to be overlooked, his species are utterly unrecognizable. I 
shall therefore, in most cases, ignore his work altogether*. It is to 
* Much controversy has arisen on the priority of nomenclature: to my view 
the simple rule appears to be this:—In those cases where the description 
(although rendered useless by more recent discoveries) was sufficient at the time 
it was written to determine the insect from which it was made, the name applied 
by the author should, whenever practicable, be retained, due pains being taken by 
subsequent writers to ascertain the species from which the description was drawn ; 
