173 



give sufficiently exact details of the antennal cavities, tarsal 

 structure, &c., to allow of much more than a guess as to the 

 genus of his insect — but the details he gives are inconsistent 

 with its being an Anthrenus or a Cryptorhoimlum or congeneric 

 with the species referred to above as intermediate between those 

 two genera. I suspect it is a Trogoderma. A. australis, Hope, 

 is fully discussed above under Gryptorlioimlum. 



BYRRHID.^. 



MORYCHUS. 



I find that I was in error in (doubtfully) attributing to 

 Byrrhus the two species which I described under the names 

 B. torrensensis and B. rancus. The original specimens of the 

 former were much encrusted with some extraneous matter and 

 the examination of subsequently captured examples has satisfied 

 me that the position of the tarsi — laid back against the tibise — 

 which led me to associate the species with Byrrhus was due to 

 this extraneous matter having made them cohere to their tibise. 

 B. torrensensis therefore should be transferred from Byrrhus to 

 the allied genus Morychus. It is a winged insect and its tarsi 

 are devoid of well-dehned lamellae on the undersurface, being 

 very similar to the tarsi of the European M. csneus, Fab. The 

 other species referred to (above) is discussed in the following 

 note. 



PEDILOPHORUS. 



Byrrhus raucus, Blackb., belongs to Pedilophoms — which 

 Lacordaire and Erichson regard as a subgenus of Morychus — ■ 

 being wingless and having a very long lamella under the third 

 joint of its hind tarsi. In Masters' Catalogue Morychus heteromerus. 

 King, is referred to Pedilophorus — I suppose either because it 

 has been ascertained to belong to that aggregate as distinguished 

 from the typical form of Morychus (T do not think any note to 

 that effect has hQen published) or on the ground that Pedilophorus 

 as a name has priority over Morychus. It certainly is the older 

 name but Lacordaire objected to it on the ground that it was 

 founded on a specific rather than a generic character. I hesitate 

 to regard this as a valid reason for discarding the claim of the 

 name to priority — but I see no reason why both names should 

 not stand as the differences between the respective insects to 

 which they are applied seem to be well marked and important. 

 Regarding Morychus heteromerus, King, I am in some perplexity. 

 The description of it is most unsatisfactorily brief, but it is 

 certainly very distinct from all the ByrrhidcB known to me. If 

 King's statement that its tarsi are heteromerous is not an error 

 of observation I should expect to find that it is not really a 

 Byrrhid. 



