of the Subfamily Dynastinoe. 267 



the Biiii-sli IMuscum Collection, I am al)lc to give here a few 

 notes upon the correct nomenclature o£ the species. 



Blackburn himself called attention (Trans. Roy. Soc. S. 

 Austr. xix. 1895, p. 41) to the great variability of the species 

 of the genus Semanoplerus ; but he proceeded to describe a 

 consideiable number of new forms from minute differences, 

 as though the range of variation had been exceptionally 

 small. After a very careful comparison of his types in con- 

 junction with all other available specimens, and in particular 

 a study of the genitalia of the mahs, I have been driven to 

 the conclusion that the genus consists of only a few species 

 of great variability. The excision of the hind angles of the 

 prothorax, upon which Blackburn relied for the primar}' 

 subdivision of the genus, is found in every degree of develop- 

 ment; the puncturation, the sculpture and pubescence of the 

 pygidium, and even the shape of the prosternal process, are 

 highly inconstant. I have already expressed my opinion 

 that the three names bestowed by Hope {adelaidce, sub- 

 aqnaUs, and depressus) refer all to one species. To this 

 species depressiusciilus, Mack, and meridianiis, Blackb., also 

 apply, and it should be called S. subcostatus, Cast. Sema- 

 nopteiits leai, Blackb., and S. tricostatus, Blackb., are two 

 species appaiently confined to West Australia; while all the 

 other names introduced by Blackburn (except afen^rt^j^.?, which 

 I have already referred to Eophileurus) belong, in my opinion, 

 to a single variable insect, which ranges right across the 

 continent fiom Perth to N. Queensland. It was first 

 described by Macleay as S. convexiuscxdus. The only other 

 known species is S. solidtis, Burm. 



The species of Dasygnathus have also been tabulated by 

 Blackburn by the use of characters which seem to me to have 

 little or no importance. An accidental separation of the 

 elytra in some specimens apparently misled him into de- 

 scribing these as dilated behind the middle. Tims, he has 

 aduiitted that this and the shape of the horn of the male are 

 all he could find to distinguish D. trituberculatus and recti- 

 cornis. With regard to the first point, the only ditference 

 perce})tible to me between the type-specimens is that in 

 J), trituberculatus the elytra are slightly parted, while, as to 

 the second, variation in the most variable of all features 

 must be as:-umed to be merely individual until it is proved 

 common to a group. In my opinion, D. trituberculatus, 

 recticoriiis, and major are indistinguishable. Blackburn has 

 overlooked the fact that the median thoracic tubercle men- 

 tioned by him as the chief differential character of the iirst 

 is similarly present in the other two. It is also found in the 



