233 



were correct. Of the species described by him the following 

 comments are offered : — • 



grossipes. A very distinct species, with the base of the 

 mentum much as in caviceps, but the two species otherwise 

 very different. 



creberrimus. I cannot find that Blackburn has anywhere 

 published a note as to creberrimus being a synonym of 

 paradoxus, but at the side of his copy of the description of 

 creberrimus he wrote " ' = paradoxus Macl." and the description 

 agrees so well with ordinary specimens of that species that I 

 also regard it as paradoxus. It is probable that some of 

 Fairmaire's other names are bestowed upon forms of the same 

 variable species. 



jratemus. Although placed in A, species noted as having 

 "antennae novem-articulatae. Mentum emarginatum," this 

 species was said to have ten- jointed antennae, and the mentum 

 was not even mentioned. Probably it was accidentally referred 

 to A, and as the species of B were divided into three groups, 

 dependent on the form of the mentum, it would be unsafe to 

 identify any specimens as fraternvs, without additional 

 particulars to those given in the description (which is simply a 

 brief comparison with cycnorumj. 



Cryptodus paradoxus, W. S. Macl. 

 C. subcostatus, Macl. 

 C. obscurus, Macl. 



The types of subcostatus are quite ordinary specimens of 

 paradoxus ; the types of obscurus differ from those of 

 subcostatus in the particulars mentioned by Macleay, but the 

 differences are individual rather than specific. The life the 

 insects lead naturally causes older specimens to lose much of 

 their gloss; the antennae of the four specimens are almost 

 or quite buried within their cavities, but appear to be quite as 

 in paradoxus. 



Cryptodus incornutus, Macl. 



The type of incornutus is certainly very close to 

 paradoxus, the general outlines of the head, prothorax, and 

 elytra (and the subapical tuberosities of the elytra) are very 

 much the same; the deeply-notched mentum, the antennae, and 

 legs are also very similar, but the complete absence of cephalic 

 tubercles (they are, however, often very feeble on paradoxus), 

 the decidedly coarser prothoracic, and the generally coarser 

 punctures, may be distinctive. 



A smaller and even rougher specimen also with nontuber- 

 culate head was sent to me some years ago by Mrs. Hobler of 

 Dalby; and has been considered a possible variety of 

 paradoxus. 



