elude it. 10 The photograph of Lysurus Gardneri, as well as the dried 

 specimens, has a close resemblance to the two following species, and 

 I have heretofore believed that in time they would all three prove to 

 be the same species. We must abandon this idea now that Professor 

 Fetch has demonstrated that the arms of Lysurus Gardneri are organ- 

 ically united, for they are entirely distinct in both of the following 

 species. 



Il 





Fig. 42. 



LYSURUS 

 CLARAZTANUS. 



\ 



Fig. 43. 



LYSURUS SANCTAE- 

 CATHERINAE. 



Fig. 45. 



LYSURUS WOODII. 

 (From the co-type.) 



LYSURUS AUSTRALIENSIS (Fig. 39). One collection of a 

 Lysurus from Australia is at Kew, published as above. How it dif- 

 fers from Lysurus borealis I do not know. Professor McAlpine has 

 advised me of a red Lysurus in Australia, but I have not had further 

 details. As I think the published figure of Lysurus Australiensis is 

 overdrawn and inaccurate, I present a photograph of the type, which, 

 while not satisfactory, is true as far as it goes. 



LYSURUS BOREALIS (Figs. 40 and 41). This is claimed 

 to be distinct from the preceding, but I know no points of difference. 



10 It has been classed in the genus Colus, but for me it has no characters in com- 

 mon with the genus Colus, which is a clathrate genus. It might be included in Pseudocolus 

 according to the definition of that genus, but it is so different from all species of that genus 

 1 think it better not to so include it. 



38 



