306 
of which the other specimens that I have seen (including the 
presumable type in the Macleay Museum) are females. 
L. latiusculus, Macl. The presumable type of this species 
(female) is in the Australian Museum. I can find no non- 
sexual difference whatever between it and the presumable 
type (male) of L. sericeus, Macl., also in the Australian Mu- 
seum. It appears to me doubtful whether the specimen pin- 
ned into the label "latiusculus," is really in its proper place, as 
Macleay's measurements of that insect indicate a considerably 
smaller species, but as latiusculus is practically undescribed 
(being merely briefly comparea with piri penni>i, Germ.), it is 
incapable of identification unless the specimen in the Aus- 
tralian Museum be accepted as the type. 
L. holosericeus, Macl. The presumable type of this 
species is in the Macleay Museum. It is closely allied to L. 
iridipennis, Germ, fsenex, Blackb.), and r/nirilipes, Blackb., 
but, inter alia, differs from both of them by its clypeus with- 
out any tendency to sinuation. 
EIGHTH GROUP (a, B, CCC, D, OF TABULATION). 
The following notes are on species belonging to this 
group, which differs from the first and fifth groups by the 
structure of its hind tarsi, but agrees with them in other char- 
acters, i.e., vestiture, etc. 
L. asper, Macl. The presumable type of this species is 
in the Macleay Museum, and the same species also is ticketed 
"sylvicola" in the same Museum. If the specimen pinned 
into the label ''asper" is really the type, it is incorrectly des- 
cribed in Macleay's monograph, where the vestiture of the 
pronotum is stated to be "a, frill of long, erect, black hairs on 
the base, apex, and sides." Owing to that statement I as- 
sumed that the species was not aspe?-, and described it 
(P.L.S., N.S.W., 1891, p. 482), as spretu.<^. It is very pos- 
sible that the presumable type is not the real one, but never- 
theless, as it now stands in the place of the type, it seems 
better to admit its claim, and regard spretus as a synonym, 
than to adhere to the description and regard asper as a 
species known only by a brief description, and very likely 
non-existent. For reasons stated under the name si/lr'/cola. 
Fab., I am quite confident that Macleay was mistaken in 
ticketing asper (spretus, mihi.), as sylvicola. 
L. atratus, Burm. In his monograph Macleay expresses 
doubt as to his identification of this species, and merely quotes 
Burmeister's description. I have specimens from Tasmania 
(the original locality), which agree perfectly with Burmeis- 
ter's description, and are certainly this insect. In both the 
Sydney Museums iridipennis, Germ, fsenc.r^ Blackb.) stands 
