291 



described some new species. Since that pa])€r was published I 

 have had opportunity of studying a large number of additional 

 species, and have now before me a considerable number as yet 

 undescribed. I am still of opinion that Colpochila cannot be 

 maintained as distinct from ILt ploni/chd, although T think 

 that I was mistaken in selecting the former name for use, in- 

 asmuch as llayhnMichd seems to have been used for Boisdu- 

 vaFs M (h)h)ntli(( ohcxa in Dejean's catalogue, in 1837. Col po- 

 chila was proposed by Erichson (1843) without description. 

 In 1850 Blanchard furnished characters for Erichson's name, 

 and at the same time characterized under the name Tlap- 

 loniichd an aggregate which he regarded as forming a genus 

 allied to but distinct from Cnlporhila. I, however, can find 

 no character mentioned in his diagnoses which distinguishes 

 either from the other, but in an appended note it is stated 

 that in Tl (iplomiclia the galea of the maxillae is not gibbous, 

 the labium is less quadrate, and the antennal club and clypeus 

 are distinct in shape (but without indication of the nature of the 

 distinction, unless reference is intended to the word "produc- 

 tus," which in the diagnoses is used of the clypeus of Colpo- 

 chila, but not of Haplonyrhrf , and ''oblonga," which is used 

 of the antennal club of Haplonycha, but not of Colpnrhila ). 

 However, these character© are, I think, of no value, though, of 

 course, one cannot be positive about the maxillae without dis- 

 secting all the species, which I have not been able to do. Bur- 

 meister, in 1855, treated the two aggregates as identical. ' Lacor- 

 daire,in 1856 (in his tabulation of the If eteron>irid genera of the 

 world) distinguishes r'o/por/' //<7 from Ba/plonycha by the shape 

 of its antennal club ; certainly not, in my opinion, a character 

 of generic value, nor constant in any considerable number of 

 species. It is quite possible that the long and somewhat di- 

 verse series of species which I attribute to Hnplonyrha may 

 sooner or later be regarded as yielding material for the forma- 

 tion of several new genera. At present I am able to break 

 those species up into several groups, distinguished from each 

 other by easily recognizable characters ; but those characters 

 are all such as appear to me, in the Australian Ser/roide<: in 

 general, merely specific, i.e., not indicative of the nature of 

 the other characters of the insects in which they appear. 



It has seemed to me, therefore, that Haplnpychn mav be 

 dealt with most satisfactorily by dividing it into subordinate 

 aggregates under the name of groups, a method of treatment 

 which I adopted recently in revising Onthnphar/nsi and Lrpa- 

 refru'f. The species of TJ aploiiyrJuf known to me fall conveni- 

 ently, I think, into eight groups, wliich may be distinguished 

 as follows : — 

 k2 



