22 



Erichson described one species (P. bimaculatus) ; it is easily 

 recognisable. 



Blanchard followed with three species (erythropterus, navicularis 

 and ustulatus) ; all are easy to identify. 



Burmeister was the next describer, and he also added two 

 names {discoidalis and pectoralis) the former of which he gives as 

 Mr. W. S. Macleay's name (no doubt MS.) and states that it is 

 identical with australis, Boisd. It seems to me decidedly that it 

 is a variety of the species that Sir W. Macleay has called 

 australis, Boisd., and that the insect which Sir W. Macleay sub- 

 sequently named iridescens is the same thing. Pectoralis (as Sir 

 W. Macleay points out) is not a Phyllotocus. 



In 1858 Bohemann described three species (inarginicoUis, 

 ohlongus and velutinus) which Sir W. Macleay says (I think 

 correctly) are all founded on varieties of the species that he calls 

 mcestus, JBoisd. 



Then Sir W. Macleay follows with his 12 names on which I 

 make the following remarks. 



Assimilis is excessively close to Macleayi, Fisch. Its author 

 states that the only good specific character to separate it by is a 

 slight groove on its forehead. After examining a long series I 

 have failed to find such a groove constantly present or absent in 

 either species, and doubt whether the two are distinct. 



Kingi is undoubtedly a good and distinct species. I believe it 

 to be the insect which Boisd. called rujipennis, but as Sir W. 

 Macleay has attributed that name to another insect I shall not 

 disturb his nomenclature. 



Marginipennis has puzzled me considerably. Its author states 

 that it is abundant in the neighbourhood of Sydney ; yet I have 

 seen nothing among the numerous Phyllotoci collected by me (or 

 sent to me from) near Sydney which agrees with the description. 

 Unfortunately I can find no reference to it in the notes I made 

 when examining Sir W. Macleay's types, — so I must pass it by 

 with the remark that unless there is some clerical or printer's 

 error in the description it is probably a good species unknown to 

 me. 



Iridescens (as noted above) I have little doubt is identical with 

 atistralis, Boisd. 



Palliatus is decidedly a var. (not I think sexual, as Sir W. 

 Macleay conjectures) of discoidalis. 



Marginatus its author conjectures to be the female of 

 marginipennis. Judging by the description I have no doubt it 

 is a form of that species, though I doubt the difference being 

 sexual. 



Ruficollis I cannot identify confidently. The colours are 

 differently described in the Latin diagnosis and the English 



