123 
taken the opportunity to study the widely scattered literature of 
the subject and offer the following notes as an attempt at a 
generic name Aulicus 21 specific names have been proposed for 
them, and two species described as Thanasimi and one described 
as Clerus have been shown to be in reality Aulici,—viz. 
T. rufimanus, Gohr. and sculptus, Macl., and C. ins stabilis, 
ew now draw attention to the fact that the following also 
appear to be decidedly members of the same genus,— —viz., Clerus 
the above Xylotretus serbbilgitie 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 fovex on the 
elytra. But in all the large number of Auliei 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 
indeed in any Australian Clerid) known to me ncline to t 
opinion that X. scrobilatus is Pici iua attributed to Australia. 
If not, it probably represents a genus as yet uncharacte 
But if the “ transverse fold” can he disregarded as (say) a dee 
generic identification of X. serobilatus is impossible without an 
inspection of the type, but whatever it may be it is not an 
Aulicus unless the description is outrageously ee ace Unfor- 
UM Spinola gives a wrong reference to his figure, which 
rts a ue vu peu the matter (as Go rham points 
y been shown to jog It will be convenient, however, 
io Rui ok them all now. The following, ‘however I believe 
to be founded on error, or mere conjecture 
