58 Mr. Arthur M. Lea's Revision of the 



rufipennis* are concerned, it is to be borne in mind that 

 the artist in drawing the antenna of an insect, part of which 

 is compressed in one direction, and part in almost an 

 opposite direction, must necessarily draw one portion from 

 the side, when it appears totally different to what it does 

 from in front; thus if the antennae of this species were 

 drawn from one direction they would appear almost as 

 rows of overlapping plates. 



Neither can I regard fiagellatus t as a valid species. I 

 have numerous specimens differing in width (this differ- 

 ence is often more apparent than real, owing to the irregu- 

 lar contraction, liable to occur in this, as in many other 

 genera of Malacodermidae). If the widened apical portions 

 of the rami are examined, it will be noticed that the serra- 

 tions are often due to hairs or setae, although frequently 

 distinct in themselves, moreover are nearly always different 

 in the different joints, are distinct in some siDecimens and 

 indistinct or not at all traceable in others ; in the type of 

 fiagellatus they are apparently as indistinct as in many 

 specimens from Tasmania. 



I have examined the type of rhipidius, which bears a 

 label in the late W. S. Macleay's handwriting " Lycus 

 rhipidion Capt. King Australasia," also the type X of 

 septemcavus, bearing in similar writing " Lycus 7-cavus 

 Capt. King Australasia." The two specimens are 

 certainly sexes of one species, as suspected by several 

 entomologists (see figures 16 and 17 for antennae of these 

 specimens). 



The type of rhipidius is a very large male (by no means 

 of uncommon size for Queensland, however), with the 

 prothorax comparatively small, rostrum long and thin, 

 and elytral punctures large and transversely oblong. I 

 have figured (fig. 16) one of its antennae as seen from the 

 side ; and some of the rami (A, B, C, D and E). 



I have also figured (fig. 18) the antenna of a normal 

 male of erythroptcnis, showing the form most abundant in 

 Tasmania (fig. 19 is that of the corresponding female); 



* See elsewhere as to the various species regarded and figured by 

 Waterhouse as r\ijijjennis. 



I Mr. Blackburn apparently accepted Waterhouse's surmise (in 

 T.E.S., 1877, p. 84) as to rhipidius and se/ptevicavxis being identical 

 with rujipenne, as he does not mention either ; although certainly 

 the original descriptions are far from satisfactory. 



X The antennae are damaged in this specimen, only nine joints 

 being left on one side and fewer on the other. 



