75 



ment of fasciculatus is evidently a specific, not a sexual, char- 

 acter. The specimens described by Dr. Schwartz appear to 

 be males. 



Dr. Schwartz states that Crepidomenus filiformis, Cand., 

 must be referred to this genus, but in describing his two 

 new species mentioned above he does not differentiate them 

 from filiformis. However, it may be inferred that they differ 

 from that species by the third joint of their antennae longer 

 than the fourth, for he attributes that character to them 

 both in describing them, and in the diagnosis of the ' genus 

 he states that the third antennal joint is either exactly equal 

 to, or longer than, the fourth; and as he recognizes only the 

 three species the third antennal joint must be exactly equal 

 to the fourth in the species that he regards as filiformis. 

 That is the case in respect of the insect that I have myself 

 believed to be filiformis. 



Nevertheless, it now appears that my identification of 

 Candeze's species was, according to its author, not correct. 

 Many years ago I sent to Dr. Candeze specimens of what I 

 regarded as his 0. filiformis, on which he did not write me 

 any remarks, confirmatory or otherwise. Lately, however, I 

 have acquired the 6th part (1896) of Candeze's "Elaterides 

 nouveaux" which I had not previously seen, and I find it 

 stated there that the species I sent to the author is a new one 

 closely allied to filiformis, and which he describes under the- 

 name sulcicollis. He erroneously attributes it to Adelaide, 

 doubtless through that being my place of residence. Its 

 habitat, however, is Victoria — the habitat of filiformis also. 

 As I have a fairly extensive collection of Victorian Elateridcc, 

 including numerous Paracrepidomeni, from various localities 

 in that State, and Candeze refers to his having seen filiformis 

 from Victoria in four different collections, it is improbable 

 that that species is not before me. Candeza differentiates 

 sulcicollis from filiformis as being less pubescent, with the 

 prothorax of the male more elongate and parallel, and with 

 the median sulcus of the pronotum not abbreviated. As I 

 find in the series of specimens which I have attributed to 

 filiformis varying differences (in respect, sometimes of one, 

 sometimes of another, sometimes of all, of those characters) 

 among individuals taken in a single locality, I cannot accept 

 sulcicollis as even a well-marked variety of the older species. 

 Dr. Schwartz, when he formed the genus Paracrepidomenus, 

 seems to have overlooked sulcicollis — at any rate, he made no- 

 mention of it. 



