and ordinary species of Troz. The specimen in question is 
comparatively small (Long. 7 1.), and has elytra not soldered 
together and wings (short ones, as far as I can see), but pre- 
sents all the other characters mentioned above as those of 
Megalotror. It may be noted that Lacordaire states that in 
his opinion the presence or absence of wings has no import- 
ance in Trog. Under these circumstances, if Megalotroz is 
to stand as a good genus, another new generic name will be 
required for my Tasmanian specimen; but as the latter dis- 
tinctly connects Megalotroz with Trow, and it is probable 
that other intermediate forms will yet be discovered, it 
seems better for the present to regard Megalotrox as a sub- 
genus. For the present, at any rate, then, I am not satisfied 
that Australia possesses more than three valid genera of 
Trogides, viz., Tros, Liparochrus, and Antiochrus, which 
can be distinguished as follows : — 
A. Antennal club normally lamelliform Trox. 
AA. Basal joint of antennal club sub- 
cupuliform. ) 
В. Elytra normally striate... ^d 
BB. Elytral with a wide lateral mar- 
gin which is closely striate, in 
contrast with the general sur- 
face bo på E. - . Amtiochrus. 
N.B.—I ought to add here that I have not seen the type of 
Antiochrus, which is presumably in Europe, but have identified 
it from Dr. Sharp's description, so that there is a bare possi- 
bility of my identification being incorrect. 
Liparochus. 
Trox. 
This genus is very widely distributed over the earth, and 
some of its species have been introduced into so many lands 
that they have become more or less cosmopolitan. Lacordaire 
says that America is the continent where Trox is most 
plentiful. Species found in Australia have been described 
under 34 names, 7 of which I believe to be merely synonyms 
or names which are incapable of being referred to any par- 
ticular species. "These are discussed below. In the following 
pages I purpose supplying a tabulation of the distinctive 
characters of the known Australian 770068, together with 
some notes on synonymy, etc., a note on an introduced 
species, and descriptions of 6 new species. A certain number 
of the names are connected with descriptions so brief or 
vague as to be practically useless. These are all, I think, 
from the peus of Mr. W. 8. Macleay and Sir W. Macleay, 
and it would be of little advantage to furnish a revision of 
the genus without giving some account of these difficulties, 
which I am the better abie to do, as an opportune need for 
visiting Sydney has enabled me to spend a couple of days 
in studying the Trogidæ of the “Australian” and “Macleay” 
