856 ZOOLOGY INSECTS. 



&c Although these divarications from the typical form are con- 

 siderable, and possibly may require their separation into a distinct group, 

 as I have used the term in my classification, yet I do not think they will 

 justify raising the division to the dignity of a subfamily." 



In regard to the Trigonopterygi, I quote the following from the same 

 notes : 



" Triffonopteryx has a conical, somewhat ascending head; an oblique 

 but incurved face, and ensiform auten-nse, and if the wings were of the usual 

 form would doubtless be placed in this group (Tryxalini) by all entomolo- 

 gists. The same remark may be made in regard to Hyalopteryx, Charp. 

 If we place the former in a separate grotip, or limited family, as has been 

 done by Walker, and in which I have followed him improperly in my Synop- 

 sis, on account of the umisual elytra, how shall we avoid the necessity of 

 forming a separate group for Sfrfienarium, which has but figments of elytra, 

 unusual in form and neuration, attached to the sides of the thorax ? Trifjo- 

 tiopteryx is essentially tryxalidian in form and features, and should be 

 included in this group (Tryxalini) ; therefore I feel compelled to correct my 

 former work in this respect." 



Notwithstanding Dr. Brunner Wattenwyl approves of the character 

 chosen, which forms the chief ground for separating the PhymatidtB from 

 Pamphagida, yet I doubt the propriety of forming two divisions. Placing 

 Mastax in a separate group or division is certainly correct. I know nothing 

 in regard to the species on which he bases his subfamilies CoelopternidcB and 

 ChoroetypidcB. 



Before speaking of the genera which the author embraces in his sub- 

 families, I desire to call attention to the order in which he arranges these 

 subfamilies, which has been given on a previous page. The author does 

 not state positively that this is the order in which they should stand ; but it 

 is the order in which they are placed in the body of his work. 



In his Conspectus, they stand in the same order, Proscopidte standing 

 at the head ; Mastacidce second ; and, then, as given, down to PneumoridtB ; 

 then follows Choroetypidce ; after that the other two as given. As the order 

 in the body of the work, so far as given, corresponds with that in the Con- 

 spectus, it is probable that this forms a correct outline of his arrangement. 



