3o8 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. [Vol. Ill, 



Leptaulax f malaccae + manillae + dindigalensis + j hatcJiianae + f roepstoi-fi [part] + j cicatrosus + 

 ? consequcns + j subsequens + f bicolor [part] + insipiens + sumatrae + t calcuttae + abdomini- 

 scidptus + t geminus + sequens + f «««t^ + t eschschoUzi + t aurivillii + tenasseyimensis + evidens ¥ 

 ■\ differ eniispina + separandits ^ + maxillonotns + inedius + ab. divaricatus, Kuwert, 1898, 

 pp. 286-300. 



Leptaulacides ^rugulosus + f Fnihstorferi + ■] EschschoUzi -1- f barbicauda + j Andamanarum + jpala- 

 wanicus + -f anaulax + -f Nietneri, Zang, iQoSfl, pp. 100-2, 106-9, 164-7, 232-4, 235-6, 246-7. 



Leptaulacides vicinus , Arrow, 1907, p. 445. 



Leptaulacides ^ papaiianns + J analis, Zang, IQ06&. 



Leptaulax ^bicolor, Gravely, 1914«, p. 31. 



Leptaulax f bicolor + vav. ■] vicinus, Gravely, above, pp. 257-259, pi. xiii, figs. 56-561:?. 



Kuwert's descriptions of L. dindigalensis and L. consequens agree as well with 

 the characters of L. novaegnineae as with those of the present species ; zoogeographi- 

 cal considerations, however, seem to preclude the possibilit}^ of the identity of the 

 former wdth that species. 



The best reason for placing many of Kuwert's species here rather than under 

 L. dentatiis is a purely negative one — the absence of any reference to the great width 

 of the lateral punctured grooves of the elytra that is such a conspicuous feature of 

 L. dentatus and its allies. This, however, is a character which Kuwert is not likely to 

 have omitted when it was present ^ ; and I do not think that the long list of s^^nonyms 

 that has resulted from the procedure is bigger than was to be expected in view of 

 the extraordinary variability of the specimens which I have been compelled to regard, 

 for the present at least, as belonging to the single species, L. bicolor, with one variety, 

 vicinus. It is of course possible that some of the names given above as synonyms may 

 in reality apply to distinct species, sub-species or varieties ; but I do not think this 

 will ever be settled without reference to Kuw^ert's types, and until some one is able to 

 approach the question with a far bigger and more representative collection of the 

 genus than I have had to deal with, when it is possible that some of the above 

 names may have to be revived. To attempt to distinguish such now would, I am 

 convinced, only throw into yet greater confusion the nomenclature of this already 

 complicated genus. 



It is not at all surprising that Zang, using to a large extent the same characters 

 that Kuwert had regarded as of importance, should have described a number of new 

 species from specimens, many of which are unique or from a single collection from a 

 single locality and so very likely from a single colony. 



the synonymy adopted here confirmed by such specimens determined by Kuwert as I have since seen, 

 and as Kuwert's inability to recognize his own species a second time is shown by his having applied the 

 name L. roepstorfi, to specimens of what I take to be this species and to specimens of L. bicolor in differ. 

 ent boxes belonging to a single collection, I prefer in the absence of the type, to leave the name 

 separandus provisionally in the place in which his description renders it most probable that it ought 

 to go. 



^ See footnote on previous page. 



'^ It should, however, be pointed out here that this character is not equally strongly developed 

 in all specimens of L. dentatus ; and I find that Zang has identified specimens of this species in which 

 the punctures in these grooves are so little elongated as to remain almost round, with Kuwert's 

 L. maxiUonoLus and médius, names which appear in the above list as synonyms of L. bicolor. 



