331 
have not met with any insect more likely to be AlicrotJ/opuSy 
I have recently reconsidered the question of the identity with 
it of Macleayia, and am now of ojjinion that the two genera 
cannot be separated. The discrepancy between Macleayia 
and the diagnosis of MirrotlKtpiis consists in the flabellum of 
the antennae of the male of Mdchayui being five-jointed, 
while it is said to be three-jointed in M irrofhoimfi. The ex- 
treme variability of the antennal structure, however, among 
many Australian M('Jolonth\ch'>> that seem to present no other 
difference likely to be generic, seems to forbid the acceptance 
of that as a valid generic character. Indeed, having now seen 
what I believe to be the male of my M . lii/hrida (the second 
species that I attributed to Mnrleayia ), I am fairly confident 
that in that insect the flabellum of both sexes is three- 
jointed. Therefore, I do not regard M (icUdi/ia as more than 
a subgenus of Mirrothopio^, containing only one described 
species (nngulcwis, Blackb.), while two described species (hy- 
hricla, Blackb., arc! casta nopferu.^, Burm.), are of Micro- 
thopus in the strict sense. It is even possible that hyhrida is 
a variety of caHanopferu.^, as there does not seem to be any 
good character to separate them, apart from colour : but it 
would not be safe to pronounce them specifically identical 
without examining a specimen agreeing in all respects with 
Burmeister's description. 
Burmeister distinguishes JIic?'ofhopu-< from Liparetrus 
by characters that are quite insufficient now that the species 
of the latter genus have been found to be so numerous and 
varied in structure, viz., its more elongate elytra and less 
convex pygidium. It is well differentiated, however, by a 
character that I have already referred to (Tr.R.S.S.A., 
1898, p. 31), as of great value for the generic distribution of 
the Australian Melolonthides, viz., the sculpture of the elytra, 
which in Microthopus (but in no TJpnrefnifi known to me), 
consists of well-defined, uniform striation. 
AUTOMOLUS. 
In Tr.R.S.S.A., 1898, p. 31, I suggested the possibility 
of the species on which this Tasmanian genus was founded 
being congeneric with some of those of which Macleay formed 
his second section of Liparetru'^. I am now, after a much 
more extensive study of Lipaietroid La iik Uiconits, very con- 
fident that my conjecture was correct. As is so frequently 
the case in respect of the M el olont hides of Australia, the 
genera involved in this discussion have been rendered more 
difficult to identify by the absence of knowledge, on the part 
of their founders, of the extreme variability of the antennse 
of the insects in question. Burmeister gives "nine- jointed 
