283 
Museums. Unfortunately, the results of that visit are un- 
satisfactory for the Macieayan species, as I find that the 
types do not bear tickets enabling them to be identified. In 
both Museums each name is written, together with a men- 
tion of the habitat, on a slip of paper laid on the surface of 
the cabinet drawer, into which slip are pinned all the speci- 
mens supposed to be of that species, the individual speci- 
mens being without separate tickets. I now proceed to supply 
information regarding the separate species, and regarding 
some others that seem to call for remark. 
T. alternans, ХУ. 8. Macl. There is no specimen in either 
of the Sydney Museums bearing this name, and Mr. Masters 
is satisfied that the type is not in existence. Harold, without 
giving his reasons, assumes it to have been the insect which 
Erichson described as T. Australasi@, and consequently drops 
Australasie as the later name. It, however, appears to me 
quite indefensible to sink a name connected with a good 
(and easily identified) description in favour of a name соп 
nected with a description that might be founded on алу спе 
of a considerable number of species, unless it be definitely 
stated that the change is founded on an examination of the 
original type. 1 shall, therefore, treat 7. alternans, W. 8. 
Macl., as non-existent. 
T. subearinatus, Macl. In the Australian Museum two 
specimens stand pinned into this name. One of them is the 
species that Harold subsequently described as T. fenestratus; 
the other is so covered with accretion that it is impossible to 
identify it with certainty, but I think it is 7. Crotchi, Har. 
In the Macleay Museum also two specimens are similarly 
attributed to the name, one of which 15 T. fenestratus, Har. ; 
the other, T. candidus, Har. The last named is evidently not 
the type, as it is notably smaller than the specimen that 
Macleay described. T. subcarinatus, Macl., 1s, therefore, 
identical with either fenestratus, Har., or Crotchi, Har. The 
description of subcarinatus does not supply information to 
decide the matter, although it appears to me to point to 
Crotchi, as it seems unlikely that if it had been founded on 
the same species as fenestratus ihe nitid spaces on the elytra 
would have escaped notice. 1 am afraid, however, that 
there is not sufficient evidence to justify the sinking of either 
of Harold’s names, and that it is the name subcarinatus 
which must be dropped. It may be well to remark here that 
the Troz which Harold described as subcarinatus, Macl., is 
not that species, but squamosus, Macl. 
T. alatus, Macl. There are two specimens thus named in 
the Macleay Museum. They represent a very remarkable 
and isolated species, notable by the great width of the pro- 
