Rev. F. 1). Morice's Notes on Australian Sawfiies. 271 



wood's Type-specimen with the 1st cubital nerve very faint, 

 nearly obliterated ["fere obliterata" as the author correctly 



states), but not quite so, though his Figure does not show it 

 at all. (In Kirby's Type of bisecta this nerve is quite distinci 

 and normal !) The body is almost entirely fulvous, but 

 with the pleura, sterna, metanotum, propodeum, hind fe- 

 mora, a spot and streak on the middle mosonotal lobe, and 

 the edges of the scutellum as well as a large mark on its disc, 

 more or less completely blackened. The wings have a yellow 

 stain, and their neuratioil and the stigma are brownish. A 

 larger and more robust species than most of this group 

 (Section II in Kirby's List) — about 18 mm. long. I have 

 not been able to examine the saw, and cannot describe its 

 characters. . . . mayrii, Westw. — bisecta W. F. Kirby. 



I have carefully compared the Types of mayrii, Westw.. 

 and bisecta, Kirby, and am certain that the two belong to 

 one species. Both specimens were taken by the same 

 collector (Mr. Du Boulay) in AVest Australia; mayrii at 

 Swan River, bisecta at Nicol Bay. 



W. Australia. Type of mayrii at Oxford. Type of 

 bisecta in B.M. 



— Antennae with six joints H>. 



16. Thorax nearly unicolorous, lighter or darker testaceous 



throughout 17- 



— Thorax black with yellow markings 18. 



17. General colour pale testaceous. Head and mesonotum opaque, 



very closely punctured and rugulose. Hind tarsi pale. 



belinda, W. F Kirby. 



The details of the saw in this species curiously resemble 

 those which appear elsewhere only in the group of bella. 

 Cf. PL XIV, Fig. 17, and PI. XV, Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 9. But 

 its other characters, and especially the form of the 3rd 

 cubital cell, suggest that it can only be very remotely 

 connected with that group. 



S. Australia (Adelaide). Type in B. M. 



type — characterised by seven-jointed antennae and only three 

 cubital cells ! ! it seems to me altogether unreasonable that, 

 when a so-called "" genus " is thus founded solely on blunders and 

 misrepresentations, and corresponds to no real group of natural 

 objects whatever, it should he allowed " standing in nomenclature " 

 merely because the author has gone through the form of " selecting 

 a type.'' Such work is certainly no contribution to science, and 

 does not deserve to be treated seriously as literature. 



