265 



a repetition of Waterhouse, witii the addition of three new 

 species. Other authors only catalogued the sjDecies or de^ 

 scribed new ones. No table has been published to indicate 

 the distinctive characters. 



Of the 56 names referred to above, 11 are placed in Mas- 

 ters's Catalogue, which is, I believe, the latest catalogue of the 

 Australian Diphuce plidla', as mere synonyms. The following 

 of them I propose to assume to be correctlv treated in that 

 catalogue, although in most instances their determination 

 (largely traditional) is very unlikely to be founded on exami- 

 nation of types, and, if that is the case, is little more than 

 guesswork, owing to the insufficient nature, of the descriptions, 

 But since they have been assigned to certain species as syno- 

 nyms, no end would be served by changing the assignment 

 through a different guess. I propose, therefore, to let the 

 following synonymy stand pending substantial reasons for 

 changing it : — 



D. foveolata, 'Boisd.^ a urulenta, Kirby. 



D. lineatocoUis, Boisd. = colaspidoides, Macl. (? GylL). 



D. splendens, W. S. Macl. ^colaspidokh'^, Macl. (? GylL). 



D. acanfhopus, Boisd. = fur cata, Guer. 



D. pUistriata, Waterh. = Zme«^«, Boisd. 



D. ccnea, Sturm = rt^,(/os«, Boisd. 



D. viridis, Sturm = sfr/ce«, Kirby. 



D. pusilla, Wsiterh. =-s}/iarafjduI(i, Boisd. 



The following synonymy of Masters' Catalogue must not 

 be allowed to stand : — 



IJ. yi/gmcfci, W aterh. = fid gida, Boisd. 



[Waterhouse's description applies to a very distinct and 

 easily recognizable species. Boisduval's is quite worthless, 

 founded on a specimen which had lost its legs, and is in- 

 capable of confident identification with any insect.] 



D. Ho2)ei, 'Wsiterh.=furcafa, Guer. 



[Waterhouse's description applies well to a very distinct 

 species. Guerin's description (Voy. Coquille, vol. ii, 1830, 

 p. 89), though very lengtny, cannot be definitely associated 

 with the insect which Waterhouse described, because it omits 

 reference to an important sexual character which Waterhouse 

 correctly indicated in his species ; it, however, applies very well 

 to an insect closely allied to Hopei, and the only objection to 

 regarding it as referring to that insect is its citing Port Jack- 

 son (instead of Western Australia) as the habitat. I take it 

 that Guerin's habitat is erroneous, and I regard Hopei and 

 furcata as two good species. It is to be noted that Water- 

 house (Tr. Ent. Soc, I., 1836, p. 219) mentions a B. furcata, 

 Guer., for which he ogives the reference, "Griff. Cuv. Insecta, 



