285 
T. Castelnawi, Lansb. This, I have no doubt, is a mere 
variety of gigas, Har. No distinctive character is mention- 
ed in the description that appears to me at all likely to be, 
specific. 
T. Tatei, Blackb. This insect was originally described as 
possibly a variety of gigas, Har. Subsequently to my pub- 
lication of the name I have identified the true gigas, and 
find that it is perfectly distinct. As I did not describe Le 
Tatei as a species, I include it among the species to be 
described below. 
T. carinatus, Har. Its author states that this insect is a 
variety of T. Australasıe, Er. 
T. squamosus, Macl. This name is represented by two 
specimens in each of the Sydney museums. They are the 
. species which Harold called T. subearinatus, Macl. 
T. Australasie, Germ (пес. Er.. Germar's brief descrip- 
tion under this name is not sufficient for its confident ’denti- 
fication, but there can be little doubt of its having beea 
founded on T. litigiosus, Har., which is plentiful in the lo- 
cality where Germar’s specimen was found, whereas T. Aus- 
trolasie Er., does not, so far as I know, occur there. 
Before passing to the tabulation of the distinctive charac- 
ters of the Australian species of Tror it seems desirable to 
offer some general remarks on the specific value of some of 
those characters, and on some of the terms that I have used 
to indicate them. The Australian species of Trox are re- 
markably variable in respect of some of their superficially 
most conspicuous features, but very constant in respect of 
certain others. Like most strongly tuberculated Coleoptera 
the development of the tubercles is decidedly variable, speci. 
mens being very often met with in which the tubercles are 
not identical on the two elytra, e.y., there are often two rows 
cariniform at the base on one elytron, and only one on the 
other: often a cariniform basal part of a series is much longer 
on one elytron than on the other. The external teeth of the 
front tibiæ are variable in number, specimens being frequent 
in which the number is different on the right and left tibie. 
Each species certainly seems to me to have a normal number 
of teeth —1, 2, 3, or more—and I do not find that variation 
tends to default but only to excess of teeth, but it is cer- 
tainly not at all rare in this respect. Тһе structure of the 
prosternum behind the coxe is certainly variable, though 
not frequently so. I have examples before me of several 
species having the middle of the prosternum normally pro- 
duced in a small angle behind the coxe, in which this angle 
is quite wanting. It must further be noted that the Aus- 
tralian species of Tror are liable to a remarkable blunting 
of the sharper prominences of their structure. Whether this 
