50 



//. phi not u-^, Burm., is probably a member of this sub- 

 group or of Group III., according as its claws are bifid or 

 appendiculate. I cannot identify it with any insect known 

 to me. 



//. (Silo pa) ijracox, Er. Blanchard, in his Cat. Col. 

 Ent., J). 112, separated this species from Heteronyx alto- 

 gether, under the name Hostili/ia, on account of the struc- 

 ture of its labrvim, and also stated that its antennae consist 

 of only 8 joints. M. Lacordaire's remark on the insufficiency 

 of the distinctive characters of I/ostl/ii/a seems to be well 

 founded ; and it would appear, moreover, that if Silopa 

 pracox, Er., is generically distinct from Heteronyx, Erick- 

 son's generic name ought to be retained for it. I have not 

 seen any insect that I can identify with Blanchard's HosU- 

 Jina, and I may add that S. prcecox, Er., was not among the 

 type specimens of Ueterouyx from Erickson's collection sent 

 from Berlin for my inspection {vide Tr. R.S., S.A., 1901, 

 p. 15) some years ago, which perhaps points to the proba- 

 bility that the type is not in existence. I am, however, of 

 opinion that Blanchard was mistaken in his identification of 

 prcecox, as there is a common Tasmanian Heteronyx (found 

 also in South Australia and New South Wales, and no doubt 

 in Victoria) which agrees so well with Erickson's description, 

 though it is certainly not Blanchard's Hostilina, that I call 

 it ''//. prcecox, Er. ?" I think the " ?" scarcely neces- 

 sary. It is easily recognizable in Gi'oup IV. by its prothorax 

 fully twice as wide as long in combination with labrum 

 (viewed from above) very strongly emarginate and very short 

 basal joint of hind tarsi. 



H . aii><trcili$, Guer, from the descrijDtion and figure to- 

 gether seems to be certainly a member of this subgroup, the 

 entire absence of description of the nature of the punctura- 

 tion rendering it, however, quite incapable of further iden- 

 tification without an examination of the type. M. Blanchard 

 is certainly wrong in identifying it with H. hepaticus, Er. 

 The description of the two are quite irreconcilable, and the 

 great difference in size and habitat renders identity most im- 

 probable. 



H. laticeps, Burm., is possibly a member of this sub- 

 group, and has already been discussed under Group III. 



H. Frogyatti, Macl. This species is not represented in 

 my collection. The characters attributed to it in my tabu- 

 lation have been ascertained by examination of the type in 

 the Macleay Museum. 



H. fMelolontha) ciliattcs, Boisd. My identification of 

 this species is founded entirely on the existence in the Mac- 

 leay Museum at Sydney of a specimen ticketed in the hand- 



