Barbet — Life-Hi&ory <>f <t New Family of Beetles. 189 



paedogenetic form had developed, given birth to young 



and been consumed by them; six young being in one 



eell and seven young in tl ther. 



Two paedogenetic individuals had each laid an egg which 



was adhering to the side of the body. 

 One had transformed to the pupa of the adult 9. 



The cells of the pupa and one of the oviparous paedogenetic 

 individuals were less than ."> mm. apart and in wood of the 

 same character of decay, which fact would appear opposed to 

 the idea of food differences controlling development unless early 

 in their history. 



Of the above, some were preserved, some died, the young 

 were placed in new eells with pulverized wood to try to raise 

 them. The pupa transformed to an adult female which lived 

 about five days and died unmated. One of the two paedo- 

 genetic individuals with attached egg rubbed the egg free and 

 the latter was lost in the wood debris; next day the other 

 specimen had two adhering bodies — one egg and one young 

 curculioid larva, the latter being in the position on the mother 

 in which her first egg had been. The new egg may have been 

 the one lost by the other reproductive individual, or may have 

 been a second egg laid by the one who carried it. At any rate 

 the first larva had the advantage, and the next day the rival 

 egg had disappeared (supposed to have Keen eaten); the larva 

 had its head in the vulva of the mother and was growing 

 rapidly, feeding on the contents of her body, hut later, when 

 full-fed, became a victim of mould and died. 



As stated in my former paper, this species should form the 

 type of a. new family, the Micromaltkidae, abundantly distinct 

 from the Lymexylonidae as is evident by the exceptions noted 

 in \j iConte and Horn's attempt to include it in that family in 

 their "Classification" (Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 507, 1883, 

 p. 231 ). The genus and species are well described by LeConte 

 (Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. XVII, 1878, p. 613) and as the 

 family is monotypic, hardly more than the citation of the type 

 genus is necessary. The feeble and ill-developed condition of 

 the species whs thought by LeConte to explain the simplification 

 of structure and thus eliminate from consideration some of the 

 structures used for classification. Hence, no doubt, the excep- 



