123 



taken the opportunity to study the widely scattered literature of 

 the subject and offer the following notes as an attempt at a 

 systematic treatment of the Australian species. Under the 

 generic name Aulicus 21 specific names have been proposed for 

 them, and two species described as llianasimi and one described 

 as Clerus have been shown to be in reality Aulici, — viz., 

 T. rujimanus, Gohr., and sculptus, Macl., and C. instabilis, 

 Newm. I now draw attention to the fact that the following also 

 appear to be decidedly members of the same genus, — viz., Clerus 

 Mastersi, Macl., apicalis, Macl., and delicatulus, Bohem. Beside 

 the above Xylotretus scrobilata, Spin., is stated by Gorham to be 

 "probably an Aulicus" — a reference that is followed (but with 

 a ?) by Herr Lohde. In this I cannot concur. Spinola describes 

 the insect as having " 5 or 6 " rows of large deep foveas on the 

 elytra. But in all the large number of Aulici I have examined 

 I have never seen one in which there is any doubt at all about 

 the number of rows on each elytron being ten, — so emphatically 

 is this the case that I am quite satisfied of the presence of that 

 number of rows of quadrate foveolse being a reliable generic 

 character (as far as Australian species are concerned). Moreover 

 Spinola describes X. scrobilatus as having a "transverse fold" on 

 the non-foveolate apical portion of the elytra, — a character to 

 which there is no approximation whatever in any Aulicus (or 

 indeed in any Australian Clerid) known to me. I incline to the 

 opinion that X. scrobilatus is erroneously attributed to Australia. 

 If not, it probably represents a genus as yet uncharacterised. 

 But if the " transverse fold" can be disregarded as (say) a defor- 

 mity of the individual specimen, it is possible that the insect in 

 question is a, Zenithicola, as in species of that genus {e.g., 

 australis, Boisd.) the foveola? of the lateral are so much smaller 

 than those of the discal series 'hat it would be correct to say 

 there are "about 5 or 6 rows of large deep foveas," though even 

 in that case one would wonder that the describer had not added 

 that there are also other rows of much smaller fovea?. The 

 generic identification of X. scrobilatus is impossible without an 

 inspection of the type, but whatever it may be it is not an 

 Aulicus unless the description is outrageously incorrect. Unfor- 

 tunately Spinola gives a wrong reference to his figure, which 

 imparts a further difficulty into the matter (as Gorham points 

 out, Cist. Ent., II., 88), but the figure that is probably intended 

 for X. scrobilatus looks as if it might represent a Zenithicola. 



Altogether, then, there are 27 names that must be regarded as 

 having been given to Australian species of Aulicus, but a con- 

 siderable number of these are synonyms, some of which have 

 alreadjr been shown to be so. It will be convenient, however, 

 to recapitulate them all now. The following, however, I believe 

 to be founded on error, or mere conjecture : — 



