303 
latter the dark marginal colouring is absent from the elytra, 
while the single male in my possession has elytra almost en- 
tirely piceous, with only a small area of reddish tone on the 
disc. The front tarsi of this male are very much longer (but 
scarcely thicker) than those of the female. 
L. nigro-iimhratus, Blackb. In my description of this 
species (Tr.R.S.S.A., 1887, p. 22) T mentioned the size of the 
upper external tooth of tne front tibiae as probably a sexual 
character. I am now, however, of opinion that that is not 
so, that in the ca'ie (at any rate of most) of the species of 
lAparetruSy differences in the robustness of the teeth on the 
front tibiae are not sexual, and that T do not know the male 
of L. nigro-iwihratus. 
SIXTH GROUP (a, B, C, DD, EE, OF TABULATION). 
The relation of this group to the third is similar to that 
of the fifth to the second. 
L. collaris, Macl. My />. niaiirus is identical with this 
insect. When I described it (P.L.S.N.S.AV., 1892, p. 99) I 
stated my reasons for considering it distinct from collaris 
(which I knew only by Macleay's description). I have now 
examined the presumable type (in the Macleay Museum) and 
find that the two are specifically identical. The structure of 
the hind tarsi being disregarded, L. rollaris is distinct from 
all those resembling it in colour, of the third group (which 
has similar vestiture), by the form of its male clypeus — not- 
ably emarginate in front, and not having the front angles 
acute. 
SEVENTH GROUP (a, B, CC, DDD, OF TABULATION). 
The following are notes on species that belong (at least 
probably) to this group, which has characters similar to those 
of the fourth group, except in respect of the hind tarsi. 
L. iridii)en7iis, Germ. There is no greater difficulty in 
studying Liparetrus than the identification of this species 
(described A.D. 1848) without examination of the type, which, 
if still in existence, is, no doubt, in one of the European col- 
lections. As far as Germar's description is concerned it ap- 
plies very accurately to L. sen ex, Blackb. — a common South 
Australian species, of which I have seen examples from, among 
other places, the original locality of iridipennis. Unfortu- 
nately, there is a very important omission in Germar's des- 
cription, for it contains no reference to the structure of the 
hind tarsi. Burmeister redescribed iridipennis, and placed 
it in his group of T/iparetri having the basal joint of the hind 
tarsi longer than the second joint. For the reason noted 
above (under L. pruinosvs, Burm.), this does not seem to me 
