242 



It is extremely difficult to compile a satisfactory list of 

 the names that can correctly be said to have been applied 

 to insects that have been or at the time of description 

 might have been with fairly good reason regarded as mem- 

 bers of this genus. I have already discussed at some length 

 (P.L.S.N.S.W., 1890, pp. 539, etc., and Tr.R.S.S.A., 1898, 

 pp. 37, etc.) the highly intricate question of the generic vali- 

 dity of the names Scitala and Sericesthis, and I will not now 

 repeat the discussion but merely mention the conclusion I 

 arrived at and to which I still adhere, viz., that they are both 

 valid names, gerninata, Boisd. (which is the type of Sericesthis, 

 and is generally accepted as a later name for Melolontlia prui- 

 nosa, Dalm.) being generically distinct from the species for 

 which Erickson founded the genus Scitala. Other species to 

 which other generic names (Melolontlia, Cotidia, and Anodon- 

 tonyx) have been applied by their authors have been by some 

 authors attributed to Scitala. As indicated below, Cotidia is 

 probably synonymic with Heteronyx. Anodontonyx may 

 rightly be treated as a valid genus. Of course none of the 

 species in question are true members of the genus Melolontha. 

 The name Scitala, then, must, in my judgment, be restricted 

 (among the Australian Sericoides) to species possessing the 

 following characters : Prosternal sutures normal, claws simple, 

 membranous wings fully developed, femora not exceptionally 

 elongate and slender, elytra normally elongate, eyes large 

 convex and scarcely granulate, front tibise and antennal fla- 

 bellum not of extraordinary structure, tarsi not bearing tufts 

 of long soft hairs, labrum distinct from the vertical front face 

 of the clypeus,(i) front of clypeus neither emarginate nor with 

 acute lateral angles, base of pronotum completely margined, 

 elytra geminate-striate, hind tibiae fairly elongate and not 

 very strongly dilated at apex, sterna more or less subglabrous 

 (never closely pilose), flabellum of antennae not in both sexes 

 very (and subequally) short. The genus Scitala is in the ex- 

 traordinary position of having been founded by Erickson for 

 two species neither of which agrees in all resi>ects with the 

 generic diagnosis. T see no escape from this conclusion, since 

 it appears impossible to doubt that two common Tasmanian 

 insects which agree perfectly as species with the well -expressed 

 descriptions of their author are really the two for which he 

 proposed the name Scitala. Moreover, I had the opportunity 

 some years ago of examining specimens which Professor Kolbe 

 of Berlin lent me for inspection as the types of Erickson's 

 species, and I found them to be identical with the species to 

 which I had attributed the names. Erickson says that the 



(1) Scitala pallidula, Macl., presents the only exception known 

 to me in respect of this character. 



