BY W. MACLEAY, ESQ,, F.L.S. 59 



as far removed from Scarapliites, as are any two genera of the 

 Family. They differ in the head, palpi, thorax, elytra, and legs, 

 while in all these Euryscaphus nearly agrees with Garenum. 



That there may be insects as stated by Count Castelnau, 

 which form an insensible passage between Euryscaphus and 

 Scarapliites, I will not deny, but I have not seen any, and the 

 instance cited by the Count, viz., Scarapliites Heros, certainly 

 does not from his description bear out the assertion. 



But even so, I cannot admit that the discovery of a species 

 which appears to form a link between any two genera, is any 

 reason for the rejection of either of these genera. 



Of the eight species of Scarapliites, described by Count 

 Castelnau in the paper above referred to, probably four species, 

 viz.: Howittii, affinis, carhonarms, and Hopei, belong to the genus 

 Eiiryscaphus, while the species named Heros, liumeralis, gigas, 

 and Martinii, seem to be Scarapliites. 



Count Castelnau appends a note to these descriptions in which 

 he gives it as his opinion that Scarapliites rotimdipennis Dejean, 

 M^Leayi Westw., and interviedius mihi, are all the same species. 

 And here again I must complain of the Count's assertion, that I 

 rely entirely on the number of the marginal punctures on the 

 elytra for differential characters between these three species. In 

 page 190 of the first volume of our Transactions, I give a detailed 

 description of Scarapliites intermedius, and append to it a remark 

 to the effect, that a ready mode of recognizing the three species, 

 ivitliout the trouble of a close examination, is to count these lateral 

 punctures of the elytra, which though not constant in number, 

 seemed to be generally most numerous in rotundipemiis, and least 

 so in intermedius. 



T have no doubt myself that intermedius is a distinct species ; 

 the other two, though apparently distinct, may be merely local 

 varieties. 



Twelve new species have been added to the genus Garenum, 

 in the Count's paper ; one of these he gives as a mere re-descrip- 

 tion of G. atronitens mihi, but it is really a new species which I 

 have named in my cabinet, G. Gawlerense, and I would suggest 

 that it should bear the name henceforth of G. Gatvlerense of Castel- 

 nau, as that gentleman was the fii'st to describe it. This species 



