60 
The task presents much difficulty on account of the unsatisfactory 
character of many of the earlier descriptions of species. The 
generic determination, moreover, of many of the described species 
belonging, or near, to Zonitis is a matter of the utmost difficulty. 
The following genera have been recorded as Australian— 
Cantharis, Palestra, Tmesidera, Zonitis, Palestrida. Cantharis 
posticalis, Fairm., might be confidently supposed to be distinct 
from Zonitis, but I have aspeciesfrom Northern Australia which 
agrees remarkably well with the specific description of that 
insect, and it is undoubtedly a Zonitis. If C. posticalis should 
prove to be a Zonitis, Cantharis would disappear from our 
catalogue. Palestra is a good genus, distinguished from Zonitis 
by the dilated and compressed form of its antennal joints, &c. 
Tmesidera is almost certainly identical with Palestra, and is a 
later name; but of its species, only the type (7. rufipennis, 
Westw.) and assimilis, Hope, appear to be Palcstre, the other 
two species attributed to the genus Z'mesidera, by Hope, being 
in reality species of Zonitis. Palestrida is, I should say, 
certainly inseparable from Palestra. 
The genus Zonitis I regard, then, as including (besides the 
species that have been attributed to it by their authors) two of 
the Zmesidere, and possibly Cantharis posticalis, Fairm. In 
1880 M. Fairmaire published (Stett. Ent. Z., pp. 261, &.) a 
monograph of the genera Zonitis, T’mesidera, and Palestra, 
quoting the exact words of the description of species he had not 
seen, and adding numerous new species ; and since that time, so 
far as I know, nothing further has been published concerning the 
Australian species of Zonitis and its allies, except isolated de- 
scriptions of additional species. 
This seems like an exceptionally favorable condition for a 
group of Coleoptera but, unfortunately, there are few other 
groups containing so large a proportion of descriptions that are, 
incapable of identification with any particular insect (without 
examination of the types), and, moreover, M. Fairmaire’s work 
is exceedingly difficult to follow out to any satisfactory result ; 
thus, without tabu/ating the species, he arranges them in groups, 
but in many instances the detailed descriptions are inconsistent 
with those of the groups. For example, in Group VIII. the first 
sub-group is characterised as follows :—‘*‘ Abdomen rufum, femor- 
ibus rufis,” and of the species associated together under that head- 
ing the first is described in detail as having the abdomen red, but 
it is implied that the legs are black ; the description of the second 
is simply a quotation from Blessig, which thus describes the legs 
—‘beine schwartzblau ;” the third is stated to have a variety 
with black legs; and only the fourth (and last) is described as 
definitely characterised by its red femora. Then, further, M. 
