Rev. F. D. Morice's Notes on Australian Sawflies. 273 



flatter than usual, without the usual distinctly projecting 

 apical lobes, hut with its whole extreme apical margin slightly 

 raised, and ending on either side in a sort of obtuse angle 

 only- not an actual protuberance . . dahlbomii, Westw. 



Precise habitat not recorded. Type ($) and Co-type (<£) 

 at Oxford. 



Clypeus, labrum, apices of hind tibiae, and tarsi not black but 

 yellow, as are also the antennae. Abdomen cyaneous. 

 Fore-wings with the bases dear but the apical half distinctly 

 clouded especially below the stigma. Scutellum with normal 

 (yellow) apical lobes, an oblique narrow yellow streak runs 

 from each of its basal corners towards the tegulae. 



chrisi it, Wes twood . 



W. Australia (Swan River). Type at Oxford. 



20. (3) Antennae black. Length only about 1-4 mm. Otherwise 

 hardly to be distinguished from the species next following 

 (lewisii). Both are almost entirely brownish-yellow above, 

 the head and thorax rugosely sculptured and dull, the abdo- 

 men smooth and somewhat shining, the apices of the hind 

 tibiae and tarsi black. In both the clypeus is rather dull, 

 and scattered over it are rounded pits or " foveae," each 

 containing at its bottom a puncture from which proceeds a 

 longish hair. . . . guerinii, Westw. smithii, Westw. 



This $ is called by Westwood smithii, but I feel little 

 doubt that it is the $ of the <$ which he had already de- 

 scribed under the name guerinii, and the latter name must 

 therefore be adopted. 



Konow considered guerinii to be the cy of lewisii (de- 

 scribed long before from a $), and treated smithii as the 

 5 of centralis $ described by Guerin in 1845. But the 

 measurements given by their authors for ventralis $ and 

 guerinii $ — the former being evidently the larger insect — 

 and also the agreement of guerinii with smithii and not 

 with lewisii in the rather unusual character of entirely black 

 antennae, make me sure that Konow was mistaken, and 

 that he has reversed the facts. (At the same time there 

 seems to be at present no positive proof that the above <$<$ 

 and $$ — which differ altogether in colour — are really in 

 any way connected. That they are so, seems to be merely 

 an inference from their agreement in certain characters 



