313 
is founded on an examination of the specimen tliat stands as 
the type would justify the acceptance of his identification as 
correct, inasmuch as Fabricius's description says, "capite et 
thorace glabris." If Burmeister's s///r/ro/o were regarded as 
distinct from that of Fabricius, the name of Burmeister's 
species would have to be changed to ha^fths^ Blanch. 
L. nigrwioi, Germ. The species that stands under this 
name in the Macleay Museum, and that Macleay describes 
under this name, is a common South Australian insect, and 
it does not agree, in an important character, with Germar's 
descrijDtion, inasmuch as its front tibiae are tridentate exter- 
nally, whereas Gerniar says, "tibiis bidentatis." 1 believe, 
however, that in Germar's description 'bidentatis" must be a 
misprint, as in other respects that description satisfactorily 
enumerates the characters of the species in question. More- 
over, I have not seen in any collection any species with biden- 
tate front tibise that could possibly be nir/riru/s, and it is 
hardly likely that a collection with so many South Australian 
Liparefri as were in that which Germar described would not 
contain this common one. Germar does not mention tliti 
structure of the antennae, which are eight-jointed, although 
Macleay's description particularly emphasises them as nine- 
jointed. The species in the Macleay Museum undoubted 'y, 
however, has antennae very easily seen to have only eight 
joints. Burmeister, I think, applied the name nir/riiiiis to 
the same species, although there are difficulties in the way of 
that opinion. He gives the size as 2i['-3 1. (Germar says 
"3 J 1.," Macleay 3^ 1., the smallest specimen I have measured 
is, long. 4 1.), and says that the clypeus of the male is "obtuse 
tridentato." Macleay asserts that this (and Burmeister's 
assertion that the antennae are eight-jointed) can- 
not be consistent with Burmeister's fugriniis being identical 
with his (Macleay's). In respect of the antennae, it was Mac- 
leay's mistake, not Burmeister's, as already noted ; in respect 
of the clypeus (the only remaining difficulty), there unques- 
tionably is a slight tendency to bisinuation (scarcely sufficient 
to deserve mention, I admit, but to which Burmeister. no 
doubt, referred), in the front margin of the clypeus of the 
male of this species ; indeed, I have a specimen in my own 
collection in which it is quite distinct, and it is just barelv 
traceable in the specimens that are named nigrinns in the 
Macleay Museum. My conclusion, therefore, is that nir/n- 
nus, Germ., was correctly identified by both Burmeister and 
Macleay, the only doubt being connected with what neither 
of them mentions as a difficulty, viz., Germar's having called 
the front tibiae bidentate. It should just be added that this 
difficulty cannot be got rid of by the supposition that Bur- 
