70 
I have seen only two specimens of this insect, and I take them 
to be males. The antennz are structurally quite as Mr. Pascoe 
describes those of G. flavicornis. The present species inter alia 
differs so entirely in colour from the earlier one, and is so much 
smaller (only about half the size) that there can be no fear of 
confusing them. 
Victoria ; on the sea beach near Melbourne (Mr. French). 
CDEMERIDZ. 
I have recently been overhauling the Wdemeride in the South 
Australian Museum and in my own collection, and find many 
undescribed species. There is great difficulty in apportioning 
them generically, as considerable confusion seems to exist re- 
garding the names of some of the genera, and much a'teration has 
taken place during recent years. For example, in Cist Ent. IT, 
p. 228, Mr. Waterhouse described two Tasmanian species under 
the generic name Sessinia; in Trans. Ent. Soc., 1895, Mr. 
Champion placed them in Asclera; in the Catalogue of 
(Hdemeride, recently published by the same author (Ann. Soc. 
Ent., Belg., XLIII., pp. 55 and 56) they appear under the name 
Ischnomera, Asclera being dropped. The type of Jschnomera is 
stated by Lacordaire to be J. melanura, Linn., but as that species 
is far, indeed, generically from the Tasmanian species mentioned 
above it is to be supposed that Mr. Champion has discovered 
melanwra not to be the real type of Jschnomera. Mr. Champion’s: 
Catalogue of M@demeride including only recently described 
species, it is of course impossible to ascertain from it to what 
genus he regards melanura as really belonging, but it is probable 
that he would place it in Vacerdes, in which Lacordaire placed it. 
(treating Jschnomera as a synonym of Nacerdes, which Mr. 
Champion, no doubt, has found to have been error). 
Scarcely any of the Australian @demeride are now referred to 
the genera in which they stand in Mr. Masters’ Catalogue. 
Selenopalpus appears to rest upon Sir W. Macleay’s very hesitat- 
ing reference to it of his S. (?) fusews and S. Masters: ; the other 
species (cyaneus, Fab.) having been called idemera by its author 
(it has been called also Lagria and Dryops.) I should say that 
Sir W. Macleay’s species are perhaps not Cidemeride, as their 
author, in his description, says ‘neck large,” and the description 
of the prothorax of fuwscws does not read like that of a member 
of the family. Why he refers the species to Selenopalpus it is 
difficult to discover, as he says ‘‘they do not answer exactly to 
the description given of the maxillary palpi of Selenopalpus, and 
as far as I can ascertain no other characters have been given for 
that genus.” Fabricius’ species is certainly, I think, not re- 
cognisable unless the type could be examined, especially as 
Olivier’s later description does not agree with that of Fabricius. 
EEE 
_ 
