Notes on Australian Coleoptera. 145 
on the base and two punctiform ones on the posteror part 
of each elytron, one behind the other; antennz brown. 
From Rockhampton. Sent to me by that indefatigable 
collector Mr. Thouzet. 
GNATHOXYS. 
Of this genus I have only three sorts—all known. 
I must observe that Blissii of Macleay jun., (described 
in the 5th number of the “New South Wales Entomo- 
logical Transactions”) is almost certainly identical with 
Granularis of Westwood, and that the sort figured by 
Lacordaire under the last name is a very distinct insect, 
being less than one half the size of Westwood’s sort. I 
believe it to be Obscurus of Reich. 
All the sorts known to me are from Western Australia. | 
Panagerde. 
This family had been considered till lately as almost 
wanting in Australia; one single species ‘having been 
described. Mr. Chaudoir has since made known a second, 
and Mr. Macleay, junr., a third. I have to enumerate 
seven sorts. : 
I just mention here than my Brazilian genus Dercylus, 
which Mr. Lacordaire has placed among the chlenidew, seems 
to come more naturally among the Panageide, where I had 
placed it, as to include 1t among the first, he is obliged to 
isolate it, on account of the structure of its palpi, while these 
organs are of the ordinary form of those of Panageide. 
The larger sorts of Hudema, seem to be confined to 
the warmest parts of Africa and India, and it is interest- 
ing to find one, at least, on the north-eastern coast of 
New Holland. 
EUDEMA, 
This genus has, since I formed it many years ago (1840), 
been published by Hope under the name of Craspedophorus. 
Mr. Lacordaire, in his genera, has adopted the latter name, 
in acknowledging that mine is anterior ; his reason for doin 
so is most singular: ‘“ becwuse,” (he states) vol 1, p. 211, “of 
we give this name a masculine ternunation it would have 
an almost absurd meaning.” But what right had he to 
alter it at all? Probably because most of the other names of 
the family are masculine, but that reason is much more 
absurd still, and even in that case, why does he not also, in the 
