450 REVISION OF THE AUSTRALIAN CURCULIONIDvE, 



with this material (with frequent additions) tliat I propose to 

 revise the Australian species of the subfamily. The subfamily is 

 in a very unsatisfactory state, there having been, in common 

 with many other subfamilies, no attempt at systematic classifica- 

 tion; many of the descriptions are very brief, rendering it impos- 

 sible to even guess to which genus the species belongs. Moreover 

 the habit that many of the older European entomologists had of 

 jumping about from Order to Order and describing insects from 

 all over the world, as well as comparing species from different 

 islands and continents together, renders it difficult for local 

 entomologists to do good work. If the description of a species is 

 such that a number of species belonging to widely separated 

 genera would fit that description I shall ignore it. 



I cannot find that the subfamily has ever been treated as a 

 whole, except by Schonherr and Lacordaire, and the divisions 

 and limitations of the sul)family proposed by those entomologists 

 I am not prepared to accept; doubtless had they seen large and 

 representative collections from Australia (which was certainly 

 not the case), both would have considerably modified their views. 

 Schonherr attaches too little importance to the under surface, and 

 Lacordaire too much to the metasternum and antennje. I ha^'e 

 been unable to find any papers by Mr. Pascoe treating of the 

 Australian species as a whole, though here and there he has notes 

 upon particular groups. As I wish to formulate as natural an 

 arrangement as possible, I shall defer stating what I consider to 

 be the main divisions with their principal features, until the end 

 of these papers, when the whole subfamily will be reviewed. 



Mr. Pascoe, in speaking of Ac/riochceta, says : — " In a family so 

 difficult to classify as the CurculioniiUe I think it would be better 

 to adhere more strictly to characters, even if it should, in some 

 cases, lead us away from an apparently more natural arrange- 

 ment." JJndeY Euo7-opis he says: — "But in a large genus like 

 Acalles it is very undesirable to admit any species having a 

 structural peculiarity at variance with its normal forms." He 

 himself, however, frequently departs from this rule; and if strictly 

 followed it would sepai-ate forms of the affinity of which there 



