243 



antennae of Srifala are eight-jointed and that the flabellum 

 of the male antennae is more than twice as long as that of the 

 female antennae. As a fact, the antennae of S. sericans differ 

 from the above description in being nine-jointed, and those of 

 S. languida in the flabellum being subequal in the two sexes. 

 I can only suppose that Erickson had of languida only the 

 female before him and counted the joints in its antennae and 

 assumed that the unseen male would differ from its female as 

 male sericans differs from its female ; and that he then as- 

 sumed (without counting) that the antennae of sericans had 

 the same number of antennal joints as the species which he 

 regarded as congeneric with it. As sericans stands before 

 languida in Erickson's memoir — and as the variation of its 

 antennae from the generic diagnosis is only in respect of a 

 character f/.e., number of joints) which is certainly not gene- 

 ric in the Australian Sericoides while the variation of lan- 

 guida is in respect of a much more important character (i.e., 

 the sexual structure) — the right course appears to be to amend 

 Erickson's diagnosis by taking out from it "8-articulatae," 

 and then regard sericans as the typical species. Burmeister, 

 indeed, has already altered the generic diagnosis to make it 

 include species with nine- jointed antennae but without notic- 

 ing that the antennae of sericans are nine- jointed. 



Erickson's generic diagnosis, moreover, is incorrect in its 

 statement that the basal joint of the hind tarsi is shorter than 

 the second joint. This is true of languida (more decidedly in 

 the female than in the male), but in the male of sericans the 

 basal joint is notably longer than the second. Burmeister 

 reproduces this error in respect of the species (evidently hav- 

 ing seen only females), but does not treat it as a generic cha- 

 racter. Neither of those authors seems to have observed that 

 the length of the basal joint of the hind tarsi varies sexually. 

 Burmeister indicates that he has not seen the male of lan- 

 guida, but nevertheless asserts (probably quoting from Erick- 

 son) that the flabellum of its antennae is very elongate. As a 

 fact it is (as stated above) very short, and the species must be 

 transferred to the genus Anndontonyx. There is no definite 

 assertion on the part of either author that he has seen the 

 male of languida. 



The number of names that have been applied to species 

 under the name Scitala or under names that may reasonably 

 be (or at any rate have been) considered equivalent to Scitala 

 as that name has been at some time or other understood, is 

 twenty-nine. As I consider that only nine of those names 

 can stand as representing valid species (capable of identifica- 

 tion) of the genus Scitala in the strict sense, it seems neces- 

 sary to furnish notes on the names that I reject, as follows : — 



