267 



tlie description. T place the names now to be treated of in 

 alphabetical order : — 



D. azurtiycnnis, JViacl. The ^jresumable type (in the Mac- 

 leay Museum) does not seem to me to differ from 1). pulchella, 

 Waterh. It is a female. 



1). ca ruled, JVlacl. lype presumably in the Brisbane 

 Museum, which I have not visited. The description would fit 

 several species. 



D. cuyna, Macl. The presumable type (in the Macleay 

 Museum) appears to me B. rugosa, Boisd., var. 



D. fulgida, Boisd. The description cannot be identified 

 with any particular species. 



D. hirti'pennis, Macl. Type presumably in the Brisbane 

 Museum. The description does not enable me to place the 

 species in my tabulation ; but I think it is a good species which 

 I have not seen. 



D. humeralis, Macl. The presumable type (in the Macleay 

 Museum) appears to me to be D. rugosa, Boisd., var. 



D. latipennis, Macl. Type presumably in the Brisbane 

 Museum. The description contains no definite information 

 as to whether the longitudinal sulcus of the pronotum is 

 divided in its basal part. If it be n.ot divided, latipennis is 

 probably near Mastersi, Macl. : if it is divided, the species will 

 stand in my tabulation near parvula, Waterh. 



D. lateralis, Macl. I can find no difference, except a 

 little in colour, between the presumable type (in the Macleay 

 Museum) and the species which stands in the same Museum 

 (correctly, I have no doubt) as D. pygma^a, Waterh. 



D. obscura, Macl. The presumable type in the Macleay 

 Museum does not appear to differ, except in colour, from that 

 of D. nifidieollis, Macl. The only definite distinction that the 

 description indicates consists in the greater length of the 

 lateral foveas of the pronotum in obscura: but I do not find 

 this a reliable character, except in a few instances of very 

 peculiar lateral foveae. The length of these foveae varies some- 

 what within the limits of a species, and also appears different 

 from different points of view. 



D. pubiventris, Burm. The description of this species is 

 very defective, and is founded on a female example. I am 

 fairly confident, however, that the insect it represents is D. 

 rugosa, Boisd. Macleay makes the name a synonym of colas- 

 pidoides, Macl. (?Gyll.), hut, i7iter alia mult a, the size that 

 Burmeister assigns is much too small for that identification. 

 According to Burmeister, D. rugosa, Boisd., is a svnonym of 

 D. aurulenta, Kirby ; but the latter is one of the species that 

 even the vague description of D. rugosa cannot be made to fit. 



