266 



I. p. 483," of which he gives a short diagnosis, adding his 

 opinion that it is not a Di'phucejihala. I have not the work 

 he refers to, but have no doubt Waterhouse's opinion is cor- 

 rect. The insect of which he furnishes the diagnosis is clearly, 

 however, not that which Guerin described in Voy. Coquille.] 



B. S'pencei, Waterh. ^/w^^/o^c/, Boisd. 



[Here again Waterhouse's description can be confidently 

 identified with a familiar species; but Boisduval's rugosa 

 might be any one of several Diphucepliala'. I think that I 

 know rugosa, Boisd., from its being a common species near 

 Sydney, and one of those that fit the description, and there- 

 fore I propose to retain the name and treat Sp^ncei and 

 rugosa as two good species. And here I may remark that 

 Waterhouse himself seems to have confused the two species, 

 since he states in a footnote to the description of Spencei that 

 after writing it he had observed the female of that insect 

 to differ from the male by the front angles of the prothorax 

 not being produced. The female in question was no doubt 

 a specimen of the insect that I take to be rugosa, Boisd. I 

 have both sexes of both species before me, and do not find 

 that there is any sexual difference in the front angles of the 

 prothorax. This confusion of Spencei and rugosa no doubt is 

 what accounts for Waterhouse's memoir not containing the 

 description of so common a species as that which I have called 

 rugosa, Boisd.] 



Of species more recently described I find that D. lati- 

 collis, Lea (which I have received from its author), is evi- 

 dently the species that Waterhouse described as Spencei; and 

 an examination of the presumable type of D. prasina, Mad. 

 (in the Macleay Museum), has satisfied me that it is the in- 

 sect which I described as D. Kershaivi, Macleay's being the 

 older name. 



I have now indicated as synonyms 10 of 56 names that 

 have been used for Diphncepluthr. Of the remainiiig 46 I 

 have been able to identify, with more or less confidence, and 

 tabulate the characters of, 35 of the species that they repre- 

 sent, and I furnish below descriptions of 6 new species, bring- 

 ing the total to 41 species. There are thus left 11 names to 

 be accounted for, on which I make the following notes. To 

 prepare these notes I have visited the Sydney Museums, and 

 have there examined the specimens bearing tlic names that 

 Macleay used for Dlphucephalce, but, unfortunately, with not 

 very satisfactory results, as there is in very fe-w instances any 

 mark to indicate the actual type. Tn some cases specimens of 

 more than one species bear the same name, and in one in- 

 stance the presumable type differs widolv in colouring from 



