369 



Coleoptera, its hundreds of species being all of them obscure 

 insects of uninteresting appearance, closely allied inter se, 

 almost devoid of reliable distinctive colouring, and bur- 

 dened with numerous names attached by the earlier authors 

 to descriptions that are practically useless. I wrote a re- 

 vision of the genus as then known to me in Proc. Linn. Soc, 

 N.S.W. (1888 and 1889), but that work now stands in need 

 of being superseded by a- new revision, owing to the large 

 number of additional species that have found a place in col- 

 lections during recent years, most of which are as yet un- 

 described. The paper of which I now offer the first portion 

 is an attempt to me^t that want, and will complete the series 

 of papers on the Australian Sericoides which I have laid be- 

 fore the Royal Society of South Australia during the last 

 three years. 



In my former revision of Heteronyx (founded by M. 

 Guerin-Meneville, 1830) I entered somewhat fully into the 

 history and synonymy of the genus. Subsequent investiga- 

 tion has not materially affected the conclusions set forth 

 in that paper, although it has added information of certain 

 generic forms that have since been characterized, and has 

 yielded additional information about synonymy. The state- 

 ment that I did not know any Australian Sericoides except 

 Heteronyx having in combination elytra of normal length, 

 antennae of 8 or 9 joints, and claws not simple can- 

 not, of course, now be repeated in the present tense, inas- 

 much as I have since formed 3 new genera (Pseudo- 

 heteronyx, Neoheteronyx, and Anacheirotus) having those 

 characters, for certain species that have come into my hands 

 since I made the statement referred to. Moreover, a recent 

 examination of the collection of Mr. W. S. Macleay, in the 

 Macleay Museum at Sydney, points to the probability of the 

 name Cotidia being a synonym of Heteronyx (vide Tr. R.S., 

 S.A., 1907, p. 244). I have already in this paper pointed 

 out that the genus Callahonica was erroneously placed by me 

 {vide Tr. R.S., S.A., 1895, p. 36) beside Heteronyx. With 

 these qualifications the general remarks on the characters 

 and synonymy of Heteronyx (which, however, did not in- 

 clude reference to Callahonica, a name of later date) in my 

 former revision of the genus do not appear to me to need 

 alteration. For the characters of the recently added genera 

 (mentioned above) it is easy to refer to their diagnoses in 

 former volumes of our Transactions, and their relation to> 

 Heteronyx is indicated also in tabular form in Tr. R.S., 

 S.A., 1898, p. 34, and 1900, p. 40. It will be convenient 

 here to recapitulate briefly the conclusions in respect of 

 synonymy set forth in my former revision, but it is unneces- 



