49 
suture and the hind part of the sides, that the prothorax is 
implied to be black whereas it is black with some coppery re- 
flection, and that the punctures of the prothorax should be 
‘minute ” but are scarcely so fine as is indicated by that word. 
I think, however, that I may venture to assign a place in my 
tabulation to obtwsus on the strength of this specimen, enclosing 
the name, however, between brackets to indicate that (as in the 
case of other species so marked in the tabulation) there is an 
element of douht in its identification. 
Its place in the tabulation should be beside acutangulus and 
mundus (described above) on page 69, loc. cit., and the three will 
have to follow levicollis, Blessig., thus :— 
DDD. Prothorax punctulate ; eyes not bordered by a carina. 
E. The elytral seriate punctures comparatively large (much more so 
than in Howitti, Pasc.). 
F. The elytra evidently striate (size compara- 
tively large—7 1. or more) ... [obtusus, Pase. ] 
FF. The elytra absolutely devoid of striation.. mundus, Blackb. 
EE. The elytral seriate punctures much finer ... acutangulus, Blackb. 
(Amarygmus) rufipes, Macl. In my Revision of the 
Amarygmides I treated this species as being the only representa- 
tive of the aggregate distinguished by the following characters in 
combination, viz., ocular sulci present, legs not of uniformly dark 
colour. There is every reason to believe that the names picipes,. 
Macl., and nigritarsis, Pasc., were given to insects appertaining 
to this aggregate, and in my Revision I indicated the opinion 
that they might both be synonymous with rufipes, Macl. Among 
the numerous Chalcopteri that I have accumulated since the 
publication of my Revision I find at least three good species of 
this aggregate closely allied to, but distinct from, rufipes, and it 
is extremely difficult to determine whether any of them is picipes 
or nigritarsis. As regards rufipes, 1 possess an example from 
Gayndah (the original locality) sent to me by Mr. Masters (the 
original captor of the species), and ticketed by him ‘compared 
with type.” It does not agree with Sir W. Macleay’s descrip- 
tion, inasmuch as its head, prothorax, and under surface are (not 
black but) blue, and its legs are not “entirely red,” but have the 
tars. of dark piceous colour. I consider, nevertheless, that the 
speci.aen is rightly named, and have no doubt the description is 
wrong, as Mr. Masters is about the most careful and reliable 
authority I know in the matter of identifying a species by com- 
parison with the type specimen. One of the three species 
mentioned above I am disposed to think is picipes, Macl., the 
description of which is merely a statement that its elytra (not 
blue but) green, its legs (not red but) piceous brown, its elytra 
a little more largely punctured, and its form shorter and broader 
distinguish it from rujipes. The specimens I am discussing 
D 
