302 



ean discover nothing except that blmidus is a little wider than 

 hinotatus (no doubt due to sex — the male Brachypepli are usually^ 

 narrower than the females), has a more rufous club to its 

 antennae, and has more rufous colouring on its abdomen. I have 

 before me a large number of specimens from various parts of 

 Victoria (the locality cited for both species) among which I find 

 slight variable differences such as Murra}^ mentions, and in- 

 cluding both forms, but I can see no reason whatever to separate 

 them specifically. B. caslanipes, Murr., the author thinks is 

 perhaps only the Victorian form of the Tasmanian B. planus, 

 Er., aud suggests that his readers may consider it a variety. 

 The only difference he definitely specifies is that B. castanipes 

 is smaller than j)}anus. I have collected specimens ia Victoria 

 and Tasmania which are undoubtedly all B. planus, and there is 

 no distinct closely allied species among them. They vary con- 

 siderably in size. The above corrections of nomenclature reduce 

 the number of described Australian Brachypepli to six (viz., 

 duritus, Murr.; basalis, Er.; binotatiis, Murr.; Macleayi, Murr.; 

 Murrayi, MacL; and planus Er ). I know all these species 

 except Macleayi, Murr , a name that I cannot identify with any 

 insect. Most of the characters Murra}- cites in his description 

 would appl}' to several species, but the colouring of the elytra 

 seems to be different from that of any other Brachypeplus I have 

 seen (piceous, with a narrow basal margin of red). I conclude 

 therefore that Macleayi is not before me. B. auritus, Murr., is 

 so unlike the other species in general appearance and in the 

 structure of its head that it ought I think to be formed into a 

 new genus (not merely a subgenus, as Murray suggests) but for 

 the present it is perhaps better to let that question stand over, 

 more especially as I have before me several other species that 

 differ from B. planus, tfcc, in isolated structural characters on the 

 value of which from a generic point of view I am not prepared to 

 give a decided opinion, not having many Brachypepli from other 

 parts of the world for comparison. I will therefore on the present 

 occasion merely describe these new species placing them provi- 

 sionally in Brachypeplus and furnish a tabulation of the distinc- 

 tive characters of the species that must now stand as Brachypepli. 

 The Australian C arpophilides known to me I regard as all be- 

 longing to Brachypeplus and Carpophilus, which may be readily 

 distinguished inter se by the form of the labrum (among other 

 characters), that organ being in Carpophilus deeply emarginate 

 in front while in Brachypeplus it is nearly straight or slightly 

 rounded. It should be noted that immature examples of 

 Brachypepli are somewhat common in collections, and these are 

 usually of an uniform ferruginous colour. 



B. Olliffi, sp. nov. Elongatus ; subparallelus ; minus latus 



