210 



iu regarding as a male the specimen on which he founded his 

 genus ; although the antennal characters he gives would not be 

 quite satisfactory if regarded as describing even t\\Q female of 

 my JSIacleayia. I draw attention to this because there is un- 

 doubtedly very little difference between Microthopus and 

 Macleayia, except in respect of their antennal peculiarities. 

 [Xeither of the insects I described as appertaining to JSIacleayia 

 seems to be specifically (even if it should prove to be generically) 

 identical with Ilicrothopus castanopterus. 



EHOPJEA. 



This genus is characterised with extreme brevity in the 

 ^'Insecten Deutschlands (a.d. 1848)," where its author (Dr. 

 Erichsen) introduces it (quite casually) into a tabuL.tion of 

 the Melolonthid genera, its place in which indicates some par- 

 ticulars regarding its antennas, labial palpi, and claws. A 

 note is added as follows : " New genus from jVew Holland ; 

 antennal club of the male six jointed, pj^gidium blunt at apex." 

 Two years later M. Blanchard described the species (from 

 N.S.'W.) on which Erichsen had founded the genus under the 

 name R. Verreauxi. Pive years later still Dr. Burmeister 

 characterised the genus at much greater length, slightly alter- 

 ing the definition of its antennae in order to admit into it 

 Melolontha heterodactyla of Germar. Finally, in 1856, M. 

 Lacodaire mentioned the characters of the genus in his 

 " Genera des Coleopteres," but ignored the alteration that Dr. 

 Burmeister had made, remarking that Germar's insect ought 

 to be the type of a new genus. 



I am acquainted with a species which, I am quite satisfied, is 

 R. heterodactyla of Germar, and with another species which I 

 am satisfied cannot be generically separated from it, althougb 

 the number of joints in its antennal club is different. There 

 seems to be no good reason for excluding either of these from 

 Rliopaa apart from the difference in the number of joints 

 composing the antennal club, and I cannot look upon that 

 alone as a valid generic distinction, especially when it is noted 

 that the club seems to be formed in each case upon the same 

 plan, the basal two and the apical six joints in all these species 

 showing little variation, and the difference depending on 

 whether joints three and four belong to the dilated or the un- 

 dilated series. I think therefore that Dr. Burmeister should be 

 followed in this matter, and 1 have no hesitation in attributing 

 to the genus Uliopcea the following species although its male 

 has an antennal club consisting of eight joints. 

 i?. oiiagnicornis, sp. nov. Minus elongata, breviter necdense 

 pubescens ; rufescens (nounullis exemplis prothoracis 

 disco obscuriori) ; capite prothoraceque densissime, ely tris 



