304 
absolutely incompatible witn the identification of his iridi- 
pennis with sener^ although in seucr the basal two joints are 
all but equal — in the male the basal joint, in the female the 
second, being just barely shorter than the other (Germar and 
Burmeister both describe the female only). But, unfortu- 
nately for that identification Burmeister adds a note that 
Germar gives the wrong size for his insect, and that it is (not 
3^ 1., but) 2h 1. long. The smallest specimen that I have 
seen of L. senex is 3 J 1. The question, therefore, arises as to 
the grounds on which Burmeister made this assertion (giving the 
same size for iridifennis that he assigned to discipennis, Guer., 
a very much smaller insect than sene.r). Without definitely 
asserting it, he certainly seems to imply that he had seen Ger- 
mar's type. Nevertheless, I am of opinion that his iridipennis 
is identical with my seneo:, and that, if his measurement is 
correct, it was founded on an exceptionally dwarfed example. 
Burmeister's accuracy in respect of this species is certainly 
discounted by his having represented Blanchard's si/Ivicola as 
a synonym of iridijjennis , which is far from a correct state- 
ment, Blanchard having merely placed in his descriptive cata- 
logue sylvicola, Fab. (without a description, but with the 
mention of Tasmania as the locality of the specimens before 
him), and appended some synonymy, at the end of which he 
places ''iridescerhs, Germ." (doubtless a misprint). I feel ex- 
tremely confident that the Tasmanian specimens which Blan- 
chard catalogued as sylvicola were not iridipennis. Sylvicola 
is a common species in Tasmania, and I have much negative 
evidence (from my own collecting, etc.), that iridipennis is not 
found on that island. It seems practically certain that 
Blanchard's reference to iridipemiis expresses no more than 
that author's conjecture tnat iridipennis is identical with 
sylvicola, which is certainly not the case, though that is not 
to the point here. Macleay's treatment of iridipemiis is most 
unsatisfactory. In the Macleay Museum two specimens are 
pinned into the label "iridipen^iis," one of which is my 
senex, the other my caviceps (the former with the front tibii 
tridentate and the basal two joints of the hind tarsi subequal, 
the latter with the front tibiae bidentate and the basal joint of 
the hind tarsi very much longer than the second). Mac- 
leay's description of iridipennis — which has always been a 
puzzle to me, appearing to describe a South Australian T.ijia- 
retruH very different from any that I have seen— is evidently 
a jumble of these two specimens, founded on the front tibise 
of my seiie:r and the hind tarsi of my ravicejjs. I may add 
that my treatment of se?ie,r as a species distinct from iridi- 
pennis was founded on its wide divergence from Macleay's re- 
description, and that author's assurance that specimens of it 
