286 
those of them whose names are not Macleay's are in Europe, 
I presume, if still in existence : — 
L. uniformis, Blanch., from Eastern Australia, seems 
likely to be a member of my twelfth group. The description 
implies that its elytra are of testaceous colour, without either 
pilosity or dark markings. If that be so, it is j^robably a 
species that I have not seen. Its author supplies no infor- 
mation about the structure of its hind tarsi. Macleay sug- 
gests its possible identity with his luridrpennis, but that 
is most improbable. The descriptions do not agree, and the 
localities are very far apart. 
L. convexiusculiis, Macl. Quite unrecognisable by the de*3- 
cription. I could not find the type in either of the Sydney 
Museums, where it might be expected to be. 
L. curtulus, Burm. I suspect this species of being identi- 
cal with ferrugineus, Blanch., although there are discrep- 
ancies of colour which render the identity doubtful. The 
description of colour agrees better with uh/fpatosns, Macl., 
but the clypeus of the male does not seem to agree with that 
of the latter species. It may be distinct from both^ in which 
case I have not seen it. 
L. f/lahratiis, Burm. I cannot identify this species. It 
is probably a memxber of my fourth group, and seems to be 
nearest to incertus, Blackb., but, infer alia multa, differs ex- 
tremely in colouring. If the type was a specimen from whose 
propygidium and pygidium the vestiture had been removed 
by abrasion it miglit be L. orafus. Macl. 
L. glaher, Burm. This species is scarcely described. 
There being no information given by its author with regard 
to even such important characters as the structure of the «tii" 
tennas and the front tibiae, it is useless to hazard a guess as 
to its proper place in the genus. 
L. Lottini, Dupont. According to Macleay, this species 
is identical with L. Intmilh, Blanch., in which case it is an 
Automolus. I cannot see, however, that Macleay can have had 
any solid ground for identifying it with any insect in parti- 
cular, as the descrijDtion is quite worthless. 
L. nir/rironis, Hope. This is a mere name ; it is unac- 
companied by any information that would associate the 
species with Liparetrus : in fact, the scanty remarks on the 
elytra seem to be more consistent with a place in some other 
genus. 
L. gagaticpps, Macl. The presumable type is in the Mac- 
leay Museum. It appertains to a species that T have not 
seen elsewhere. Unfortunately, the structure of its antennae 
cannot be examined without manipulation that could not be 
