184 



Queensland, which appears to be certainly congeneric and 

 very probably conspecific, with that which Burmeister 

 described as H. furfuracea. ■ It agrees perfectly with the 

 generic characters assigned (especially in respect of the large 

 strongly convex eyes) with the qualification that the apex of 

 the 3rd antennal joint can scarcely be called "strongly" 

 produced in a point (certainly not a valid generic difference, 

 however), and that I have not dissected and examined the 

 inner mouth organs. Burmeister's specific description is 

 undesirably brief, but my specimen agrees with it such as it 

 is except in respect of the statement that the front tibiae are 

 without spurs. In my specimen the spurs in question are 

 extremely short (much more so than in most species of 

 Rhopcea), but they are not absolutely wanting. The spurs 

 of the hind tibiae furnish, I think, the decisive difference 

 from Rhopcea, but it may be noted that the tooth of the 

 claws is much further from the base than in Rhopcea (as is 

 indicated in Burmeister's diagnoses of those genera). 



The subdivision of Lacordaire's "Groupe" "true Melo- 

 lonthides" is most perplexing, owing to the difficulty of find- 

 ing well-marked characters that are, on the one hand, con- 

 stant in aggregates of species evidently closely related inter 

 se, and, on the other hand, constantly wanting in other such 

 aggregates. In Berliner Entomolog. Zeitschrift., 1892, Ilerr 

 Brenske discussed the classification of Lacordaire's "subtribe" 

 "True Melolont hides" without limiting his remarks to the 

 genera of any particular country. The portion of ■ his 

 memoir which refers to the "Groupe" "True Melolonthides" 

 is, of course, the only portion that concerns genera known 

 to be Australian. It is difficult to ascertain exactly how he 

 would treat some of our genera because he referred only 

 incidentally to the characters of some of them, the definite 

 objective of his memoir being the discussion of an aggregate 

 in which he mentioned only one of our Australian genera. 

 It seems fairly clear, however, that his classification would 

 not fit our Australian genera. All of them apparently would 

 have to be divided between two aggregates, which he calls 

 Polyphyllides and Leucopholides, distinguished from each 

 other by the length of the third antennal joint. The typical 

 species of Rhopcea (R. Verreauoci, Blanch.) falls into the for- 

 mer of these aggregates on account of the elongation of its 

 third antennal joint, but the length of the third joint varies 

 extremely among species which certainly ought not to be 

 separated generically (and still less, placed in different groups 

 of genera); in R. morbillosa, Blackb., for example, the 3rd 

 joint being shorter in : proportion to the 4th than it is in 

 some species that obviously pertain to Lepidiota, which 



