78 



Revision of the Genus Stigmodera, and Descrip- 

 tions of some New species of Buprestidae 

 (order coleoptera). 



By H. J. Carter, B.A., F.E.S. 



[Read June 8, 1916.] 

 Plates IX. and X. 



Stigmodera, Escholtz. 



More than most Australian .families of the Coleoptcra, 

 the Buprestidae are in great need of revision; while of the 

 Buprestidae the' purely Australian genus, Stigmodera — num- 

 bering above 300 species of the most beautiful of our 

 Coleoptera — has never been tabulated. There is, in conse- 

 quence, much confusion arising from misidentification, 

 synonymy, and nomina nuda. Twenty-three authors have 

 described or named species, of whom, fortunately, the earlier 

 writers — e -<J-, Donovan, Kirby, and Castelnau and Gory — gave 

 excellent figures, the monograph of the last two authors being 

 a standard work of great value. Amongst later writers, 

 Saunders gave figures not only of his own species, but of 

 species of other authors identified by him. There is thus little 

 difficulty in determining the majority of the species described 

 by these authors. It is much to be regretted that later 

 writers who have contributed most new names — cff., Thomson, 

 Macleay, Blackburn, and Kerremans — have not published 

 figures of their species, so that, where the types are not 

 available for examination, there is some difficulty in deter- 

 mining the value of their species, unless they possess strongly 

 differentiated characters. The work of Thomson is so casual, 

 brief, and unscientific that the greater part is of little value. 

 He seems to have taken little pains to acquire knowledge of 

 the works of other authors on the subject. In consequence, 

 as Kerremans has shown, a large number of his names are 

 synonyms. Macleay's types are distributed between the 

 Australian and the Macleay Museums in Sydney. I have 

 been able to examine these. Moreover, many of the species 

 described by Saunders were sent to him by Mr. G. Masters, 

 late curator of the Macleay Museum, so that the named 

 specimens in that Museum may in many cases be considered 

 as co-types. Blackburn described fifty-five species, but with 

 a tendency to insufficient allowance for variation, and some- 

 times with insufficient material. I find that no less than 



