221 
future work. In this present memoir I offer to the Royal Society 
a revision of the species hitherto described, together with descrip- 
tions of 18 new species, belonging to Dr. Chapuis’ Group I., and 
hope in the future to be able to offer revisions of the three other 
groups. 
A few preliminary remarks seem to be called for as to the his- 
tory of the genus. It was founded in ]807 by Olivier, and again 
under a different name—wWotoclea—in the following year by 
Marsham, each of those authors describing a considerable number: 
of species. Previously to either of these authors, however, several 
species had been described by Fabricius under the name 
Chrysomela, together with numerous other species, for most of 
which modern classification has found it necessary to provide 
other generic names. In subsequent years species of Paropsis 
were described by W. 8. Macleay (1827), Boisduval (1835), 
White (1841), Newman and Erichson (1842), Gory (1845), 
Germar (1848), Bohemann (1858), Stal and Motschulsky (1860), 
Fauvel (1862), Baly (1864), Clark (1865), Chapuis (1877), and 
Blackburn (1890, 91, and 92). 
Turning now to the consideration of the species of Paropsis 
referable to Dr. Chapuis’ Group I., I think that the catalogue as 
given by its author may be regarded as containing all the pre- 
viously described species that there is good reason for attributing 
to the group except Parryi, Baly, and Lownei, Baly ; although 
it is possible that some of the insufficiently described species— 
especially some of Boisduval—may sooner or later be found by 
inspection of types to require adding to them. The catalogue, 
however, contains names of two species that do not seem entitled 
to appear there, viz., crocata, Boisd., and atomaria, Marsh. The 
former of these is not intelligibly described, and in my opinion 
Dr. Chapuis should have omitted it altogether, as he has done 
most of Boisduval’s names, unless he could give the assurance that 
he had inspected the type, which it seems almost certain he had 
not done. I have a specimen from Dr. Chapuis’ collection ticketed 
“ crocata, Adelaide,” which is unquestionably identical with 
Waterhouser, Baly. Among the large number of specimens of 
the genus that I have examined I have not seen this species from 
any locality outside 8. Australia, while Boisduval’s crocata is 
presumably from N.S. Wales. There seems no reason, therefore, 
to drop Baly’s name of the S. Australian insect in favor of a 
name founded on a species from a distant locality to which no 
intelligible description is attached, and I accordingly omit crocata 
altogether. As regards atomaria, Marsh., it is a nom. preoce., 
Paropsis atomaria, Ol., being a very different insect; and it is 
remarkable that this escaped Chapuis’ notice. Chapuis gives 
charybdis, Stal., as a synonym of atomaria, Marsh.; and Baly 
