122 



1891, p. 303) as a Zenitkicola, Of the remainder C. apicalis, 

 Macl., Mastersi, MacL, and delicatulus, Bohem., are Aulici (as 

 noted below); C. cruciatus, Macl., is probably a Lemidia, — cer- 

 tainly not a Clerus ; ventralis, Westw., is evidently an Olesterus ; 

 C. guttulus. White, has been stated by Gorhain to be congeneric 

 with Tillas bipartitus and therefore mentioned by me (loc. cit., 

 p. 304) as probably a Thanasimomorpha (but I have since 

 identified it, and now place it, — as noted below, — in my new 

 genus Tarsoste nodes). C. sepulcralis, Westw., remains ; I have 

 not to my knowledge seen it, nor do I find anything in its 

 description on which I can form a decided opinion as to its 

 generic position. I note however that in a recent memoir Herr 

 Schenkling mentions it as " Clerus" sepulcralis from which it 

 seems probable that it is at any rate near Clerus. Perhaps it 

 is an Orthrius (an Australian ally of Clerus named by Mr. 

 Gorham and distinguished inter alia by its scarcely emarginate 

 eyes). 



CLEROMORPHA. 



In his diagnosis of this genus (Cist. Ent., II., p. 83) Mr. 

 Gorham indicates the number of tarsal joints visible on their 

 upper surface as doubtful, — owing I presume to the type having 

 lost its tarsi. His conjecture that the number is four is correct. 



AULICUS. 



Under this name Spinola (its author) included species from 

 America and Australia. Later, Gorham expressed the opinion 

 that the species of the two continents ought to be separated, but 

 says that not having examined any of the American species he 

 " has not ventured on the alteration," and at the same time pro- 

 poses the name Phlogistus for the Australian species, though 

 admitting it doubtful whether Spinola did not consider an Aus- 

 tralian species the typical one. This is decidedly puzzling, and 

 does not seem to me to furnish sufficient reason for rejecting 

 Spinola's name in respect of the Australian species, although I 

 observe that in his recent " Clendarum Catalogus," Herr Lohde 

 has done so but (as was of course to be expected in a mere Cata- 

 logue) without assigning a reason. It is quite possible that the 

 need of the change of name may eventually be demonstrated, but 

 in the absence of a diagnosis of. Phlogistus, — which has not been 

 provided by any author, — I retain the name Aulicus for the 

 present. 



The Australian species of this genus are in great confusion, not 

 a few of them having been attributed by their authors to the old 

 genera Thanasimus and Clerus and still standing there even in 

 Herr Lohde's recent Catalogue. Having recently had occasion to 

 examine a considerable number of specimens of Aulicus I have 



