295 



to rugulosity than in most of its congeners. As, however, 

 Boisduval gives no information about the antennae of his 

 insect, and does not mention its size, I do not propase to 

 change the name of //. rfagatina, Burm,, but prefer to regard 

 M. ohesa, Boisd., as unrecognizable without a fresh des<:'rip- 

 tion founded on the actual type (which very likely is not in 

 existence), and accepting provisionally the bare possibility 

 that Burmeister's statement of colour was an intentional cor- 

 rection of Boisduval, founded on inspection of the actual type, 

 treat ''//. obtsa, Burm. ( ? Boisd.)" as the valid name of a good 

 species. Burmeister cities //. ohr^a, Boisd. (Blanch.) as being 

 the species which he called oh^-^rt, Boisd.. but tliis was almost 

 certainly without having seen th? specimens so named by 

 Blanchard. I believe, however, that the citation is correct, 

 as, although Blanchard does not describe H. ohesa, he com- 

 pares other species with it in terms that are agreeable to its 

 being H. obesa, Burm. Melolontha Asfroktbei, Boisd., is, in 

 Burmeister's opinion, probably a l/aploni/rha , from which 

 genus I unhesitatingiv exclude it, on the ground that its elytra 

 are described as not gemiuate-striate. T believe it to be a S>/s- 

 teJ/op/d. Melolonfhd ciliata, Boisd., is attributed to Hnp- 

 lonycha by both Blanchard and Burmeister, the latter stating 

 that he considers it incapable of identification. Blanchard 

 mentions that its antennae have only eight joints, and it is 

 probable that that statement was founded on an inspection of 

 the type, and therefore must not be passed over. I should 

 say that it is very likely to be identical with //. riigo^a, 

 Burm., but as Boisduval implies that the insect has not gemi- 

 nate-striate elytra, I think it unlikely that either he or Bur- 

 meister was dealing with a true Haplonyrlia, but almost cer- 

 tainly with a French elUi. Tt will be seen, then, that I reject 

 all Boisduval's names from Jin plonyrhd, believing that only 

 one of them applied to a real TJa plan ij rim, and that that 

 (ohe^a) cannot be identified unless the type exists and can 

 be studied. In 1842 PTope described as Seriaxthh Goiild'i an 

 insect from Port Essington, which has been attributed to 

 Hnplnnj/cha (CoJporhiki ) , although there is little in Hope's 

 description to indicate its generic characters. There is, how- 

 ever, in the South Australian Museum a TTaphyiiyrlia, from 

 the neighbourhood of Port Essington, which agrees so well 

 with Hope's description that T have no hesitation in consider- 

 ing it Hope's species. 



Hombre and Jacquinot. in 1842. figured, under the name 

 fnxiDayiira (Vov. Pole Sud. Atl., t. 8, f. 8). a species which has 

 been regarded as identical witii ohea^a. Boisd. T regret that I 

 have not been able to investigate the grounds of that deter- 



