78 



Philontlius sordidus, Grav., Adelaide. (UniT. Mus., Tepper.) 

 hepaticus, Er., Adelaide, 

 sanguinicollis, Fvh, Nuriootpa. (Univ. Mus., 



Tepper.) 

 nigritulus, Grav., Adelaide. 

 Q.uedius fulgidus, Fair., Nuriootpa. (Univ. Mus., Tepper.) 

 thoracicus, Fvl., Adelaide. 



ruficollis, Grav., Nuriootpa, (Univ. Mus., Tepper.) 

 Heterothops luctuosa, Fvl., Adelaide. 



picipennis, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Conurus triangulum, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Brachida suturalis, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Bolitocliara discicollis, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Hoinalota sordida, Marsh, Adelaide. 



coriaria, Kraatz, Port Augusta, 

 politula, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Calodera australis, Fvl., Adelaide. 



eribrella, Fvl., Adelaide, Port Augusta, 

 l^auvelia oxytelina, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Phloeocliaris antipodum, Fvl., Adelaide. 

 Psederus cruenticollis, Germ., Adelaide, Xuriootpa. (Col. 

 Univ. Mus., Tepper.) 



Lithocaris debilicornis, Woll., Adelaide. 

 With regard to one of tlie above genera, viz., Fauvelia ; this 

 appears in the work as Correa, but for the sake of precision it 

 has been thought advisable to alter it. 



In this connection may I be permitted to quote from the last 

 anniversary address delivered by Professor Tate on October 5, 

 1880 — " One of the new genera instituted by M. Pauvel, 

 uniquely represented by a South Australian species, is named 

 Correa — a denomination already occupied for a well-established 

 group of Eutaceous plants, a familiar example of which is 

 Correa speciosa. As under these circumstances a dual employ- 

 ment of the cognomen will prove of inconvenience, I have been 

 bold to suggest that of Fauvelia for the genus of beetles." 



Of the whole number the following five are exclusively 

 South Australian, the majority of the remaining species being 

 almost cosmopolitan in their distribution. These are Brachida 

 suturalis, Homalota politula, Calodera crihrella, Fauvelia 

 oxytelina, Fhloeocharis antipodum. 



A comparison of the South Australian Staphylinidae with 

 those of the other regions treated in M. Pauvel's work shows 

 th at we have representatives of six tribes out of the nine there 

 d escribed ; but when we come to genera the same relations do 

 not hold, we only having 32 species distributed among 16 

 genera, while in the other case there are 351 species, repre- 

 senting 78 genera. 



