62 
of the description of the antennal structure prevents my assign- 
ing this insect a place in my tabulation. 
Z. flaviceps, Waterh. This is evidently a very distinct species, 
described as having strongly punctured black elytra narrowly 
flavo-piceous at the base and sides. The absence of information 
concerning its antennz obliges me to omit it from my tabulation. 
Z. limbipennis, Fairm. As noted below, the head of this 
insect is described as flavo-testaceous, and a note following the 
description states that it is easily recognisable by its black head. 
It is from the same locality (Swan R.) as flaviceps, and if its head 
is flavo-testaceous, is similarly coloured, but seems to have closer 
and finer elytral puncturation. 
Z. flavicrus, Fairm. The antenne of this species are not des- 
cribed. It appears to be near rugosipennis, Fairm., but to have 
the fovee of its prothorax different, and a slight difference in 
colour. I suspect it of being a variety,—rugosipennis being, 
according to its author, variable in colouring ; indeed, a note states 
that flavicrus differs from rugosipennis by its testaceous femora, 
and yet both species are grouped as having red femora. . 
Z. rugata, Fairm. The description of the antennz is too vague 
to be used in tabulation. As the type is stated to be immature, 
it is difficult to form any clear conception of its characters. 
Z. semirufa, Fairm. I have not included this species in my 
tabulation because I cannot find any character whereby to dis- 
tinguish it from rostrata, Blessig., except in the colour and the 
prothoracic foveze (which do not seem to me reliable). 
Z. indagacea, Fairm. The description gives the second joint 
-of the antenne longer than the third, while an appended note 
distinguishes it from nigro-enea, Fairm., by the second joint being 
“notably shorter than the third.” 
Z. janthinipennis, Fairm. Not described ; merely briefly com- 
pared with zndagacea, without any reference to the comparative 
length of the antennal joints. 
Z. nigro-enea, Fairm. The description does not mention the 
comparative length of the second and third antennal joints. If the 
second joint is considerably shorter than the third it is probably 
identical with violaceipennis, Waterh., of which I have examples. 
In that case Mr. Waterhouse’s name becomes a synonym. 
Z. (I'mesidera) violacea, Hope. The structure of the antenne 
is not described. Evidently very near to violaceipennis, Waterh., 
but differently coloured in respect of the under-surface and legs. 
If it is a mere variety of the latter, the name has priority. 
After eliminating the above there remain 25 names as repre- 
senting the species that up to this time have been described in a 
fashion that will allow of their being confidently identified and 
their characters arranged in a tabular form. J now add seven 
