276 



however, this sulcus is distinctly wide, but to a casual glance 

 it does not appear very much different from that of some 

 species with a faint but (when closely examined) much nar- 

 rower sulcus. 



New South Wales ; Kosciusko. 



SERICOIDES. 



AUTOMOLUS. 



I furnished some preliminary notes on this genus in the 

 preceding memoir of the present series (T.R.S.S.A., 1905), in 

 the course of which I pointed out that its essential feature of 

 distinction from Liparetrus is in my opinion the structure of 

 its front tibiae. Subsequent observation has shown that this 

 same character distinguishes it from all the other known Aus- 

 tralian genera of Sericoid Melolonthides, except (Jaulohiiis and 

 the very widely separated genus Mcecfiidius. Gaidohius was 

 founded by Le Guillou (Rev. Zool., 1844, p. 224), for a 

 species from Hobart which he named vdlosus,'^ and of which 

 I have examples from the locality cited, agreeing perfectly 

 with the descriptions, both generic and specific. Blanchard 

 (Cat. Coll. Ent., 1850) states that that species is identical with 

 Sdopa puhescens, Er., and Omaloplia vUligera, Hombr., and 

 Jacq. (both described two years previously to Le Guillou's 

 description). Blanchard 's authority is not conclusive in res- 

 pect of Erichson's species, and as the descriptions do not 

 agree (e.g., Erichson makes the claws of puhescenft bifid) he 

 is no doubt mistaken in respect of puhescens. But as he 

 doubtless had the collection of Hombrot and Jacquinot before 

 him, his authority ought, I think, to be accepted for the 

 statement that 0. villigera is a Caidohius, and, that being 

 granted, there can be little doubt that he is right in identify- 

 ing it with Le Guillou's insect, which must, therefore, stand 

 as Cnulohius fOmaloplia) villiger, Hombr. and Jacq. In a 

 former memoir (Tr.R.S.S.A., 1898), I associated provision- 

 ally with C. viUiger several new species that appeared to me 

 (chiefly on account of different fades) not unlikely to be 

 eventually regarded as generically distinct from it. I am 

 still of the same opinion regarding these in!?ects, but the un- 

 questionably close structural alliance between Aufomohis and 

 Cavlohius vilUger (in spite of great difference of facies) only 

 recently observed by me, aggravates the generic difficulty. 

 The species describee! as Caidohii (?) in my former memoir 



* I may remark in passing: that by a clerical error I called 

 this species ^'C. puhescens, Le Guill.," instead of 'T. villosus. Le 

 Guill.," in Tr.R.S.S.A., 1898, p. 49. T hope that anyone having 

 occasion to refer to the memoir in Avhich this lapsus calami occurs 

 will bo £:ood enough to correct it. 



