Rev. F. U. Morice's Notes on Australian Sawflies. 329 



Note I. Proposals /<> break up the Genus Perga as 

 fy/ Leach. 



When Leach (1817) established the genus Perga he 

 described it as " Genus artificiosum, sedulose " (sic !) 

 " elaborandum." He suggested, however, no names for 

 the groups into which he thought it divisible, and this is 

 not to be regretted, for such differences between them as 

 he noticed are all either sexual characters, or due to 

 aberration in individuals. Westwood (1880). recognising 

 this, deliberately ignored Leach's divisions, nor did he 

 himself propose any others, but confined himself to elucidat- 

 ing by descriptions and figures all the species with which 

 he was acquainted. Two years later \V. V. Kirby published 

 his British Museum list of all Sawflies known to him by 

 autopsy or in literature, arranging the Perga spp. into 

 3 '"sections" according to differences in their antennae, 

 but he gave no names to these sections, and in his later 

 publications I believe that he never alludes to them. Lip 

 to that time, except Leach himself, and Lepeletier, who 

 quotes Leach's remark to that effect, no author seems to 

 have thought the genus in need as a whole of revision. 

 though it was suggested by Guerin in 1815 that it might he 

 desirable in future to treat two forms {P. lewisii and 

 ventralis- -which are probably only the sexes of one species) 

 as a distinct subgenus, in which case he proposed to name 

 it Psevdoperga. There is no doubt. I think, that if it 

 should become advisable to divide Perga into a number 

 of named sections Pseudoperga, Guerin, with lewisii, 

 Westw., for its Type will have to be one of them. But 1 

 see no need for this at present, and the section, whenever 

 it has to be established, must be established on other 

 characters than that by which Guerin proposed to dis- 

 tinguish it, namely, the absence of a 1st cubital nerve in 

 the fore-wing. For (1) this nerve is not unfrequently 

 absent in other groups. In fact, Leach and Ashmead 

 describe it as absent in polita; and sometimes (though 

 only as an aberration) it is so in that, and several other 

 species. (2) It is. sometimes at least, quite well developed 

 in lewisii. (•')) And it is more often present than not in 

 ferruginea, which seems to me clearly a member of the 

 ieivisii uroup. 



Of the "New Classification of the Genus Perga" pro- 



