220 
indeed (as I have previously remarked), it is doubtful whether 
Anthicus and Syzeton can rightly be associated in one family. 
King’s is the older name. 
CURCULIONID%. 
CYLAS. 
C. formicarius, Fab. According to M. Faust (Ann. Soc. Ent. 
Fr., 1893, p. 513) C. turcipennis (Bohem.), Sch., is not distinct 
from this species, and therefore twrcapennis ought to be regarded 
as a synonym. In April of this present year I recorded the 
occurrence in Australia of C. turcipennis. 
PHYTOPHAGA. 
PAROPSIS. 
This genus contains more described Australian species than any 
other except Stigmodera. Mr. Masters’ catalogue—1887— 
enumerates 271 species, and 15 have been added since. The only 
attempt, so far as I know, at a comprehensive treatment of the 
species is found in the Ann. Soc. Ent., Belg., 1877, where Dr. 
‘Chapuis, in describing a large number of new species, takes the 
opportunity to subdivide the genus into four groups, and enumer- 
ates the species known to him belonging to each group, but 
omits those of previous authors which he had not identified. 
Dr. Chapuis’ groups are founded on the sculpture of the elytra, as 
follows :—Group I. Elytral punctures without any seriate longi- 
tudinal disposition—27 species. Group II. Differs from I. by 
the presence of longitudinal smooth spaces among the punctures 
of the elytra—19 species. Group III. Each elytron bears ten 
longitudinal rows of punctures—118 species. Group IV. Each 
elytron bears 20 longitudinal rows of punctures—63 species. 
This method of subdividing Paropsis appears to me the best avail- 
able—at any rate I cannot find a better. In the Journal of 
Entomology for December, 1864, Mr. J. 8. Baly had commenced 
a systematic work on Paropsis, of which, however, only a single 
part—dealing with 20 species—appeared. Mr. Baly proposed to 
divide the genus into only two sections—apparently his first 
section equalled Dr. Chapius’ first and second combined, and his 
second Dr. Chapuis’ third and fourth combined. I have lately 
had the good fortune to obtain a large number of species of 
Paropsis from Dr. Chapuis’ collection ticketed with his names, 
and with this assistance have been enabled to ascertain the names 
of the greater part of the species in my collection and in some 
other collections to which I have had access; and I think I am 
in a position to furnish a revision of the genus, which, though 
doubtless needing correction, may yet serve as a useful basis for 
