11 



14. C. ccelestis, Pasc— 6'. Icevicollis, Bless. =C cyani- 



peiinis, Hope. 



15. C. similis, Blkb.=6'. longi/pennis, Hope. 



16. C. opacicoUi^, Blkb. { iiec Macl.) = C. vinosus, Pasc. = 



C . resplendens, Boisd. ( ?). 



17. C. suturalis, Pasc.=6'. sulcipennis, Hope. 



18. C. longipennts, Blkb. fnec Hope)=C cyaniventrisy 



Cart, (nov sp.). 



19. C. rugosus, Germ. =(7. puncticollis, Hope. 



20. (?)C. cro&sus, Blkb. =(7. mercurius, Blkb. 



The last named in each case has the priority, though in 

 "the case of Boisduval's species, columhinus and resplendens, 

 Iheir determination is too doubtful to allow their names to 

 rstand. 



C. cupreus, Fab., was wrongly determined by Blackburn. 

 The species determined by Blackburn as cupreus I have 

 described as C . max'imus. 



C. cupricollis, Hope. Mr. Blair has examined the type 

 from Melville Island, and writes: ''Cupricollis, Hope = semz- 

 ticus, TsLSC — smaragdulus, Fab. Cupricolle type is unique 

 in the peculiar purplish-bloom almost concealing the green 

 on the elytra and still more marked on the thorax." (It is 

 a common species in Northern Australia, of which I have 

 seen a large number, which are either green or coppery, as 

 in Pascoe's description of semiticus. A specimen labelled 

 vigilans by Blackburn in the South Australian Museum is of 

 the latter colour, and cannot be distinguished from semiticus, 

 Pasc. — H. J. c.) 



C. cupripennis, Hope. It is satisfactory to set at rest 

 this much-disputed name. Mr. Blair writes : "Cupripennis, 

 Jlope = frog gatti, Blkb. The two types agree much more 

 nearly with each other than they do with specimens sent." 

 "^This determination also agrees with (1) my own notes taken 

 at the Hope Museum, (2) note by Champion quoted by Black- 

 burn (Proc. Linn. Soc, N.S.W., 1893, p. 70), (3) notes sent 

 me by Commander J. J. Walker. Germar was evidently mis- 

 taken in his determination, and Blackburn was misled by 

 this. I believe C. semiseriatus, Blkb., to be doubtfully dis- 

 tinct from this, though distinguished in Blackburn's table by 

 "the "ocular sulcus." I have a specimen determined by Black- 

 burn which has a small "sulcus," but the specimen sent by 

 Mr. Blair compared with type is identical with the C. cupri- 

 pen7iis, Hope, sent. 



C. laticollis, Blkb. I cannot consider this more than a 

 geographical variety of C . colossus, Blkb. I have specimens 

 from Queensland which differ exactly as the author states; 

 'the prothorax in colossus is often very transverse. 



