183 



whose claws have two teeth. Burmeister says of Holophylla 

 tha.t. its claws are "/em mit kleinem spitzen Zahn vor der 

 Mitie und zahnartig vortretender Basis." Is it to be sup- 

 posed! that Erichson wrongly observed both the claws and the 

 ventral sutures ? The conclusion seems inevitable that Bur- 

 meister's Holophylla is a genus of the "Groupe" "true Melon- 

 ontMdes" and is closely allied to Rhopcea, while Erichson V 

 Holophylla belongs to the "Groupe" Macrophyllides (treated 

 by Erichson as part of his "Tanyproctini") and is allied to, 

 and possibly identical with, Olliff's genus Othnonius. As 

 Burmeister's is the later use of the name, I propose the new 

 name Pseudholophylla for his Holophylla. 



I am sorry that I was myself in error in a former 

 paper in accepting Burmeister's conclusions regarding Holo- 

 phylla, for I described as doubtfully of that genus a species 

 ("australis," Trans. Roy. Soc., S.A., 1887, p. 211) which I 

 then regarded as probably congeneric with Burmeister's H. 

 furfuracea. At the same time I drew attention to the 

 extreme closeness of Rhopcea and Burmeister's Holophylla. 

 As a result of studying Brenske's memoir (discussed later on 

 in this paper) I have, however, subsequently satisfied myself 

 that ray H. australis is not truly congeneric with H . fur- 

 furacea, Burm., but must be referred to Rhopcea, to which 

 Pseudholophylla (as I now call Burmeister's genus) is cer- 

 tainly extraordinarily close. The difference in the palpi 

 which I referred to (I.e.) as separating my R. (Holophylla) 

 australis from Rhopcea ceases to appear generic when a con- 

 siderable number of species of Rhopcea are compared with 

 each other. 



Turning now to Burmeister's lengthy diagnosis of his 

 genus Holophylla, its author does not point out its differences 

 from Rhopcea, omitting it from his tabulation of generic 

 characters, and in comparing the diagnosis, character by 

 character, with that furnished by him of Rhopcea I should 

 be disposed to think that the two might well be founded on 

 different species of Rhopcea were it not for the one statement 

 that the apical spurs of the posterior tibiae in Holophylla are 

 "somewhat blunt and at the apex leather-like." This last 

 phrase is not very clear, but I take it to refer to the some- 

 what transparent ("parchment-like" I should prefer to call 

 it) appearance of the apical part of the spurs of the hind 

 tibiae in those genera of the true Meloiont hides which have 

 the spurs blunt and dilated. The importance of this char- 

 acter will be found discussed later on in this paper; it will 

 suffice here to say that it appears to be in itself a valid 

 generic distinction between Pseudholophylla and Rhopcea. 

 I have recently acquired a Melolonthid species occurring in 



