122 
1891, p. 303) as a Hinithisol. Of the remainder C. apicalis, 
Macl., Mastersi, Macl., delicatulus, Bohem., are Awlici (as 
noted. below); C. DM Macl., is probably : x Lemidia,—cer- 
tainly nota Clerus; ventralis, Westw., is evidently an Olesterus ; 
C. guttulus, White, has been stated by Gorham to be congenerie 
wa Tillus 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 Tarsostenodes). C. sepuleralis, Westw., remains ; I have 
generic position. I note however that in a recent memoir Herr 
i rel 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. 
his diagnosis of this genus (Cist. Ent, IL, p. 83) Mr. 
Gorbam 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 
ne ne not baci on the alteration,” and at the same time pro- 
s the e Phlogistus for the Australian species, though 
curo it "doubtful whether Spinola did not consider an Aus- 
tralian species the typical one. This is decidedly puzzling, and 
ot seem to me to furnish sufficie on for rejecting 
. Spinola's name in res f the Australian o. although I 
observe that in his recent “ Cleridarum Cata " Herr Lohde 
has done so but (as was of course to be ex ied. in a mere Cata- 
logue) without assigning a reason. It is quite possible that the 
of the change of name may eventually be demonstrated, but 
in the absence of a diagnosis of PAlogistus, —which has not been 
aie qa by any author,—I retain the name Aulicus for the 
resen 
The Keeton species of this genus are in great confusion, not 
sea of them having been attributed by their authors to the old 
ra Thanasimus and Clerus and still standing there even in 
Bast Lohde’s recent Catalogue. Having recently had occasion to 
examine a considerable number of specimens of Aulicus I have 
