49 



species, but it is difficult to believe he can really have done so, as 

 he says that it has "entirely the general appearance" of Heteronyx, 

 — which is far indeed from being the case. Together with a very 

 different facies, it has simple claws and the club of the antennae 

 remarkably elongated. Structurally it is near Caulobius (which 

 Lacordaire also merges in Heteronyx, quite erroneously I am 

 convinced). Superficially it is easily separated from Caulobius 

 by the presence (at any rate in all the described species) of con- 

 spicuous pubescent vittse on the elytra ; but it is difficult to 

 specify satisfactory structural distinctions because Caulobius 

 must I think for the present be allowed to embrace species that 

 will probably have to be treated eventually as types of distinct 

 genera. The insect which Burmeister has described as Caulobius 

 (Sericesthis cervina, Boisd.) is I think pretty certainly not con- 

 generic with C. jjubescens, Le Guillou ; but as I have not to my 

 knowledge seen the former I am unable to deal with the matter 

 confidently, and must treat Caulobius sufficiently loosely to in- 

 clude in it both those which Burmeister attributes to it. Re- 

 garded thus, the only one of Burmeister's characters that seems 

 reliable is a very slight (but as far as my observation goes a very 

 constant) one, viz. the presence in Caulobius but not in Haplopsis 

 of a minute tooth on the external margin of the front tibiae close 

 to the base of those organs. In his tabulation Burmeister dis- 

 tinguishes the two genera by the form of the labrum, which in 

 Caulobius is said to be, — and in Haplopsis not to be, — prominent 

 and separated by a distinct suture from the vertical front face of 

 the clypeus. This holds good in respect of Haplopsis and 

 Caulobius pubescens but not in respect of some other species be- 

 fore me which, I feel confident, are congeneric with C. cervina. 

 So again Burmeister says there are eight joints in the antennse 

 of Cuulobius and nine in those of Haplopsis, — but the variability 

 of the Australian Heteronycides in very closely allied species of 

 numerous genera is so great as to render this character worthless. 

 The other notable distinctive character mentioned by Burmeister, 

 — viz. the presence of sexual variation in the clypeus of Haplopsis 

 and not of Caulobius, — is an important one if constant, — but I 

 have not before me (and still less had Burmeister before him) a 

 sufficiently long series of species and specimens to say confidently 

 whether it is constant. That Haplopsis and Caulobius are two 

 thoroughly good genera I should say there is not the shadow of a 

 doubt, — nor have I much doubt that all Burmeister's distinctive 

 characters (except that founded on the number of antennal 

 joints) will stand, but I suspect that Burmeister's diagnosis of 

 Caulobius was drawn up on C. pubescens only and that C. cervinus 

 if examined would be found not to correspond with the diagnosis 

 of C. pubescens in respect of the labrum and to differ in other 



