36 
but it is doubtful whether he had the true insect before him. I 
shall therefore call this species “‘H. princeps, Macl. (? Hope).” I 
have before me a specimen named by Sir W. Macleay 
“H. intermedius, De Bréme,” which is very likely to be correctly 
identified, but as there is a doubt I shall call it “A. intermedius, 
Macl. (?De Bréme).” Through the kindness of Mr. Lea I have 
been able to examine a specimen ticketed “C.A. (Mitchell’s 
Exped.)” which is no doubt one of those mentioned by Sir W. 
Macleay (loc. cit.) as being in his epinion H. colossus, De Bréme. 
T am inclined to agree with that opinion (although the specimen 
is very much smaller than colossus should be,—long., 12 L, 
instead of 161.) but shall call the species “* H. colossus, Macl. 
(De Bréme).” I have examples before me from Central Aus- 
tralia which agree very well with the description (mentioning 
very conspicuous and unusual characters) of H. interioris, Macl. 
(Darling R.), but as the localities are very far apart and different 
in character | think the determination sufficiently uncertain to 
require me to call the insect “H. interioris, Macl.?” Of 
H. pallidus, Macl., I have an example named by its author. 
H. Browni, Kirby, I do not know, but the description given by 
De Bréme (that of Kirby is quite useless for identification) is so 
remarkably identical with the description of intermedius as to 
suggest the idea of the two being a large and a small example of 
one species. The other species I have named and described 
myself. . 
The following is a tabulated statement of the characters of the 
species. A few lines of explanation however seem to be 
required in respect of a character that I have adopted for dis- 
tinguishing the main divisions. If a Hel@eus of this “first group” 
of Sir W. Macleay be looked at from the side the nature of the 
extreme margin of the prothorax will be seen to vary much 
according to the species. It assumes three forms,—First, that 
of an erect edging, its plane perpendicular or nearly so to the 
plane of the flanks of the prosternum, and separated from the 
flanks of the prosternum by a distinct carina-like rib; second, a 
form differing from that just described only in the absence of the 
carina-like rib, but having the line of contact between the two 
planes perfectly well-defined ; third, a form in which the erect 
edging is exchanged for a mere bending upward of the flanks of 
the prosternum, so that there is no line of demarcation indicating 
the meeting of two planes. Ina long series of Helez examined 
by me I have not found a single specimen that suggests any 
doubt of the validity of the above characters. The extreme edge 
of the elytra is in most species similar to that of the prothorax in 
structure, except that where the prothoracic marginal edging is 
of what I have called the third form, that of the elytra is of one of 
the other forms. 
