3iO 
THIRTEENTH GROUP (a, BB, CC, OF TABULATION). 
Distinguished from the preceding group by the absence, or 
nearly so, of vestiture on the pronotum. The species are all 
fairly recognisable, and only one remark seems called for here, 
viz. : 
L. simjjle.T, Blackb. This name must become a synonym 
of rotundipennis, Macl. When I described the species I drew 
attention to its being near Macleay's insect, but I judged fr'>ra 
the description of the latter that it was distinct, principally 
from the absence of two minute tubercles on the head, which 
Macleay mentions, and from the elytral puncturation being 
bv no means "faint." Comparison with the presumable type 
in the Macleay Museum has, however, satisfied me that the 
two are identical, the tubercles on the head being either sexual 
or accidental, and the elytral puncturation being not quite 
correctly described by Macleay. Macleay's measurement, 
moreover, is incorrect, the length being 2^-3 1. 
FOURTEENTH GROUP (aA, B, C, D, E, OF TABULATION). 
Macleay places all the species of this group among Lipa- 
retri having nine- jointed antennae. As a fact, they are so 
closely allied to the species of the first group that, so far as I 
have observed, the antenna! structure alone distinguishes ihe 
one aggregate from the other. It seems clear that Macleay 
must have examined the antennae of a few species that fall 
into my first group, and then assumed a similar structure in 
the rest of the species that, the antennae being disregarded, 
would be properly associated with them. Even on that sup- 
position, however, it is difficult to understand the positive 
assurance he manifests on the subject, for of hirsutus, Burm., 
he says that the description seems to refer it to the aggregate 
containing p]i(rntcopferus, Germ., but attributes only ei^ht 
joints to its antennae, which, he adds, "seems impossible." 
The following are notes on the species of this group and on 
their synonomy : — 
L. marginipenn/.^, Blanch. There seems to me to be no 
doubt that Blanchard was mistaken in placing this species 
among those with nine-jointed antennae. Blanchard's descrip- 
tion (which is a fairly detailed one), and his remark on the 
close resemblance of niarr/hiipennis to his aauthotrichiis seem 
to forbid any doubt that he had before him a well-known 
species, which is common in New South Wales, and stands in 
Australian collections generally under the name margitiipi'ii' 
iiu; but there are certainly only eight joints in its antennas. 
Probably Blanchard counted the joints in the antennse of 
xantliotricJiya, and assumea that a species so closely resembling 
