106 • 



The following names appear to have been given by the earlier 

 authors to insects that I should refer to Ectroma, viz., — Dromius 

 'tridens, Newm., Lebia benefica, Newm., L. Diiponti, Putz., and 

 Cymindis inquinata, Er. I regard the first three of these as 

 representing but one species which must stand as Ectroma tridens, 

 ISewm. In Proc. L.S., N.S.W., 1892, p. 67, I conjectured that 



D. tridens might be the same as Trigonothops pacificay Er., with 

 the description of which its description such as it is agrees 

 decidedly better than it does with the description of Lebia 

 henejlca, Newm.; nevertheless de Chaudoir states confidently 

 (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1873, p. 54), — possibly on an actual inspection 

 •of the type, — that D. tridens is congeneric with L. benejica, 

 Newm. (which he certainly would not have stated if it had been 

 a Trigonothops and if he had the type before him), and moreover 

 I have (since 1 wrote my note on Z>. tride7is) received from Mr. 

 A. Simson a specimen stated to be on the authority of M. Putzeys 

 •named D. tridens which is certainly an Ectroma and in my 

 opinion conspecific with E. (Lebia) benejica, Newm. These two 

 items of evidence are no doubt strong, and in deference to them 

 it seems best to regard Dromius tridens (until further evidence 

 is forthcoming) as an Ectroma badly described by its author and 

 as identical with Lebia b&nefica, Newm. I cannot, however, leave 

 the subject without adding the remarks that Newman is hardly 

 likely to have described the same insect as a Dromius and as a 

 Lebia; and that the facies of Dromius (to which Newman 

 attributed his tridens) is very much more that of Trigonothops 

 than of Ectroma, while the facies of Lebia is much more that of 

 Ectroma. 



As regards Lebia Duponti, Putz., de Chaudoir states (I have 

 no doubt correctly) that it is identical with L. benejica, Newm. 

 -Concerning Cymindis inquinata, Er., de Chaudoir states that it 

 is congeneric with L. benejica and the description reads like that 

 of a possible variety of that species (which is common in Tas- 

 >mania, — Erickson's locality for inquinata), but as I have not 

 seen a specimen exactly agreeing with the description of 

 inquinata it is better for me to consider it probably a good species. 



Of subsequently described species the following seem likely to 

 be referable to Ectroma though placed in different genera. It 

 seems well to mention them here for the guidance of future 

 •describers, although their descriptions are not of a kind to indi- 

 cate their generic position and I conjecture them to belong to 

 Ectroma chiefly by the notes of their size and style of markings. 

 They are Trigonothops ornata, Macl. (which must be very like 



E. benejica, Ne\\m.) and Sarothrocrepis liturata, Macl., notata, 

 Macl., notabilis, Macl., and fasciata, Macl. They are all from 

 ,N.W. Australia except fasciata which is from Queensland. 



