﻿486 
  Mr. 
  K. 
  G. 
  Blair 
  on 
  the 
  Fahrician 
  Types 
  of 
  

  

  22. 
  A^phitohius 
  Icevigatus, 
  Spec. 
  Ins. 
  i. 
  p. 
  90 
  [Ojjatrum). 
  

  

  New 
  Zealand. 
  

  

  =:piceus, 
  0\., 
  — 
  Mierophyes 
  nifipes, 
  Macl. 
  

  

  This 
  name 
  is 
  also 
  omitted 
  from 
  the 
  Catalogues. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  to 
  thank 
  Mr. 
  H. 
  J. 
  Carter, 
  of 
  Sydney, 
  for 
  a 
  ^\)vc\- 
  

   m&n 
  oi 
  Microphyes 
  rufipes, 
  Macl., 
  compared 
  with 
  tlie 
  type. 
  

   Cliampion 
  notes 
  AJphitohius 
  piceus,0\., 
  from 
  Adelaide 
  River 
  

   (Trans. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  1894, 
  p. 
  379), 
  and 
  remarks 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  

   included 
  in 
  Master^s 
  Catalogue. 
  

  

  23. 
  Saragus 
  kevicollis, 
  Syst. 
  Ent. 
  p. 
  73 
  [SUpha). 
  Australia. 
  

  

  This 
  species 
  is 
  credited 
  in 
  the 
  Catalogues 
  to 
  Olivier 
  (Ent. 
  

   ii. 
  1790, 
  11, 
  p. 
  1:^), 
  but 
  this 
  author 
  again 
  only 
  follows 
  the 
  

   description 
  of 
  Fabricius. 
  Confusion 
  has 
  also 
  arisen 
  as 
  to 
  

   the 
  species 
  designated. 
  The 
  type 
  belongs 
  to 
  Macleay's 
  

   Section 
  II., 
  with 
  the 
  elytia 
  reticuhite, 
  and, 
  from 
  description, 
  

   is 
  probably 
  idenlical 
  with 
  S. 
  reticulatus, 
  Haag. 
  Two 
  other 
  

   specimens 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum 
  have 
  their 
  origin 
  indicated 
  

   as 
  "Queensland." 
  Tlie 
  Tasmanian 
  and 
  southern 
  insect 
  

   identitied 
  as 
  this 
  species 
  by 
  de 
  Breme, 
  Hope, 
  and 
  Machay 
  

   should 
  therefore 
  be 
  known 
  as 
  S. 
  costatus, 
  Sol. 
  { 
  = 
  la'vicoiU.f, 
  

   de 
  Br., 
  Hope, 
  Macl., 
  nee 
  F.). 
  

  

  24. 
  Taraxides 
  Ictviyatus, 
  F., 
  Spec. 
  Ins. 
  i. 
  p. 
  323. 
  Tropical 
  

   Atrica. 
  

  

  = 
  T. 
  sinuatus, 
  F.,= 
  T. 
  conftmts, 
  Westw. 
  

  

  There 
  is 
  some 
  little 
  doubt 
  as 
  to 
  whether 
  the 
  insect 
  |)ur- 
  

   porting 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  was 
  the 
  one 
  actually 
  

   observed 
  by 
  Fabricius. 
  Westwood 
  did 
  not 
  think 
  it 
  was, 
  

   and 
  named 
  it 
  afresh 
  (Trans. 
  Zool. 
  Soc. 
  Lend. 
  1843, 
  p. 
  223), 
  

   but 
  his 
  reason 
  for 
  this 
  opinion 
  was 
  mainly 
  that 
  it 
  differed 
  

   from 
  the 
  description 
  in 
  being 
  larger 
  than 
  T. 
  molUor, 
  instead 
  

   of 
  smaller, 
  as 
  stated. 
  This 
  was 
  apparent!}' 
  a 
  slip, 
  and 
  is 
  so 
  

   noted 
  by 
  Olivier, 
  whose 
  figure 
  also 
  agrees 
  sufficiently 
  well 
  

   with 
  the 
  Banksian 
  insect 
  to 
  be 
  recognizable 
  (Oliv. 
  Ent. 
  iii. 
  

   1795, 
  57, 
  p. 
  16, 
  pi. 
  ii. 
  fig. 
  l^his). 
  This 
  figure 
  is 
  incorrectly 
  

   quoted 
  in 
  the 
  text 
  as 
  fig. 
  19. 
  The 
  identity 
  of 
  Tenebrio 
  Icevi- 
  

   qatns, 
  F., 
  with 
  T. 
  heviyadis, 
  L., 
  presumed 
  by 
  Olivier 
  and 
  

   Westwood, 
  is 
  a})parently 
  incorrect, 
  and 
  is 
  nowhere 
  suggested 
  

   by 
  Fabiiciu-!. 
  

  

  