J 45 



L. Macleayi, Ollitf. This species is practically undescribed. 

 It is the insect on which Macleay founded his genus Placonotus 

 — which is in no way different from LcBmophloeus (as Olliff testi- 

 fied after examining the type). Macleay called his species 

 longicornis (a nom. prieocc. in Lcemophlceus ) and Olliff renamed 

 it Macleayi. Macleay's very brief description is quite worthless, 

 aud would apply to many LcBmoplilvei. Unfortunately Olliff did 

 not describe it, but merely remarked on its resemblance to 

 i. testaceus, Fab., and pointed out a few differences (from 

 testaceus) so slight that I am convinced it is not really distinct 

 from the insect which Olliff regarded as testaceus. But here again 

 there is a further difficulty in OUiff's having given no description 

 whatever of the species that he calls testaceus. The only indica- 

 tion he furnishes for the identification of the latter is to be 

 found in his remark that it is common and widely distributed. 

 By means of this clue, however, I feel satisfied that I can identify 

 the Lcemophloeus to which he applied the name. I have collected 

 the insect in question and received it from other collectors 

 plentifully— its localities ranging from Cairns to Tasmania and 

 Eyre's Peninsula. I cannot think it the species that Erichson 

 (Ins. Deutsch. III., p. 320) describes as testaceus, Fab,, and 

 which I believe is generally accepted as being correctly identified 

 by him — inasmuch as inter alia multa Erichson places first among 

 the characters rendering it "easily recognisable" the presence 

 of a longitudinal impressed line on the head — which line is 

 certainly not present in the Australian insect. The following is 

 a description of the salient characters of the latter : — (as the 

 result of examining- numerous specimens) ; head with its general 

 surface even or almost even — the clypeal suture, however, 

 strongly impressed ; antennae of male not much shorter than the 

 body (of the female considerably shorter) with the basal joint 

 decidedly large — very little indication of a club in either sex ; 

 prothorax not strongly transverse, its front angles dentiform, 

 one stria (very much deeper and wider in its hind than in its 

 front half) on either side of the pronotum; very variable in 

 size. 



A few of the specimens before me if isolated from the rest 

 might appear to represent species distinct from each other as they 

 differ a little in the development of characters that are sexual — 

 the head being a trifle larger and the antennae a trifle longer in 

 some males than in others, and the length of the antennae vary- 

 ing slightly in the females — but after careful examination of a 

 great number of examples I am unable to divide them in any 

 satisfactory manner — for example, of two males certainly taken 

 in company and between which I can find no other distinction 

 one certainly has longer antennae than the other. If I am right 



