•"'•")ii Rev. F. D. Morice's Notes on Austral tan Saivflies. 



posed by Shipp in the Entomologist, Dec. 1894, I have 

 already expressed my opinion (supra, pp. 264, 271). Much 

 of it is sheer nonsense, as for instance when he sets up an 

 altogether imaginary genus Plagioperga (characterised as 

 having 7-jointed antennae and 3 cubital cells), selects as 

 its Type precisely the one species of Leach's genus (viz. 

 mayrii, Westw.) in which the antennae have not even the 

 usual 6 joints, but only 5 (!). and mentions as another 

 example of it a species really belonging to an entirely 

 different group — in fact, a perfectly normal Xyloperga, I 

 There was really no excuse for his blunder about mayrii, 

 for Westwood not only describes but figures its 5-jointed 

 antennae ! In one case, however, Shipp has proposed a 

 name which must apparently be accepted, for his " Xylo- 

 perga " (n.g. with Type halidaii, Westw.) happens, though 

 he did not know this, to be a real natural division of the 

 group, separated from all others not by antennal characters 

 only, but by a different number of joints in its palpi. It 

 may also become necessary at some future time to accept 

 the restriction of the name Perga to a group with dorsal is 

 for its Type. Cameronii again — the Type of Shipp's 

 Acanthoperga — has some very extraordinary characters, 

 though I doubt if they need exclude it from Perga as we 

 now define that genus. For Pseudoperga (with Type 

 lewisii) not Shipp, but Guerin is responsible. Pergadopsis 

 (Type dahlbomii) and Camptoperga, (Type cressonii) are 

 separated only by one character. Pergadopsis being said 

 to have 3 cubital cells only, and Camptoperga 4. This 

 character in my opinion is quite valueless for systematic 

 purposes unless it be accompanied by other differences in 

 the forms to be separated. However, I have examined 

 Westwood's Types of dahlbomii and cressonii and can find 

 no such difference in the neuration as has been stated to 

 exist. Both appear to me to have four cubital cells, and 

 I see no reason to doubt that they are congeneric. Having 

 thus gone once more point by point over Shipp's " New 

 Classification" I remain unconvinced that it ought to be 

 taken seriously. 



Ashmead (1898), probably unaware that Shipp had 

 anticipated him, also attempted to disintegrate Leach's 

 unfortunate genus. He proposed to make of it tour 

 genera — Perga, Pseudoperga, Paraperga, and Neoperga. 

 I »i Perga he named no Type; his Pseudoperga (Type polita) 

 is a '" homonym " of Guerin's Pseudoperga (Type lewisii); 



