311 
it as marf/ifiipeNfi/M does would have similar antennse. This 
species stands in the Macleay Museum as marginipenms, 
Blanch. The presumable type of L. nigrohirtus , MacL, in the 
Macleay Museum, is also //largittipenjiis. 
L. //IrsLitus, Burm. it seems clear that this species is 
identical with itKU-giiii pennis, Blanch. The descriptions pre- 
sent no definite difference except in Burmeister stating the 
number of joints in the antennae as 'only eight," which, as 
remarked above, is correct. Burmeister's omission to identiiy 
marginipennis may be accounted for by his remark that he is 
unable to bring Blanchard's Lip((refri into his work because 
their author has not described their tarsi. 
]j. pi/osvs, Macl. I have examined the presumable type 
in the Australian Museum. Its antennse consist of eignt 
joints only. It is extremely close to L. marginipennis, 
Blanch., but differs by the basal two joints of its hind tarsi 
being almost equal, i?iter se. 
L. callosua, Macl. I have examined the presumable type 
in the Australian Museum, the colouring of which is very 
unusual in the genus. Its antennse have only eight joints. 
The species seems to be variable in respect of colouring, as 
other specimens before me (otherwise identical) are without 
the red mark on the elytra. 
L. (Mflolontha) sylvicofa, Fab. This species is one of the 
difficult Liparetri for identification. Its first assignment to 
Liparetrus seems to be in Blanchard's catalogue, where, how- 
ever, it is not redescribed. Burmeister redescribed it, and I 
think his identification must be accepted as reliable, inas- 
much as he expressly stated that he had examined the Fabri- 
•cian types of MelolontJudes in London, among which that of 
si/Ivicola was, no doubt, included. Then Macleay followed 
with a redescription, which, however, is evidently founded 
upon L. atratns, Burra. In the Australian Museum two 
specimens of L. conrolor, Er., and one of L. atratns, Burm., 
are pinned into the label "sglrirohi. Fab.," and in the Mac- 
leay Museum, L. asper, Macl., stands under that name a,s 
well as under the name asper. In his monograph, Macleay 
described Burmeister's sijlvwoia (incorrectly in respect of the 
antennae, by placing it among the species having nine- jointed 
antennae), under the name ■■<aIehrosus^ and without citing any 
reason for rejecting Burmeister's name. The coTiiplications, 
however, do not stop here, unfortunately : for i^gh-irola is an 
insect the sexes of which are so different that they have be^n 
treated as distinct species. Sj/lnrnla, Burm., is the female, 
and the male was described by Blanchard as haaalis. Here, 
again, Macleay has confused matters by describing a totallv 
different species as hasalis, Blanch. I myself in my earliest 
