Introduction 5 



chida?, Coccinellid?e , Erotylidfe, DacnidcB, Melandryidse, Scraptiidce, 

 AnthicidcT, Byturidas; Bothride rider, Colydiida\ Mycetophagidae ; 

 Oedemeridae, Cephaloidae; Zopheridce, Sifnchroidcc, Pedilidse; 

 Enrj^stethidse, Salpiugidce, Pyroehroidae, Boridce, Pythidae, 

 Othniidae; Alleculidtr, Tenebrionidae (to be divided into many sub- 

 families), Nilionidce, Lagriidae. In addition, though the larvae are 

 imperfectly known, the Monommatidae and L^miexylidae are included, 

 and with doubt possibly the Mordellidae. 



These families have been heretofore, with some exceptions 

 named below, the components of the superfamilies Cucujoidea, 

 Tenebrionoidea, and Mordelloidea, which thus become united as one 

 superfamily, but divided into a greater number of families. The 

 families added are indicated by italics. On the other hand, 

 Mycetaeidae, Euglenidae, and Monoedidae are reduced on larval char- 

 acters to subfamily or tribal rank. The exceptions above referred 

 to are Eucinetidae, formerly classed as a subfamily of Dascillidae, 

 but agreeing in its larval form, apart from the lack of jointed 

 urogomphi, with the leptinid association of the Staphylinoidea; 

 Corylophida?, usually placed as an aberrant family in the Silphid 

 association: Sphindidae, the larvae of which represent "unquestion- 

 ably a simple, primitive cucujoid type," and have heretofore been 

 included in Bostrichoidea. 



In this treatment of the Cucujoidea it is to be hoped that the clues 

 to actual relationship afforded by the larval characters, so 

 thoroughly studied by Dr. Boving, may be reconcilable with adult 

 characters. But it cannot be denied that Forbes' classification 

 (Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc, XXXIV, 113-115), based on wing venation 

 and folding pattern, is not in agreement. Of the four series, 

 Haplogastra, Bostryciformia, Diversicornia, and Dryopiformia, into 

 which he divides the Polyphaga, only the first can, by transferring 

 the Scarabaeoidea, be compared with Dr. Boving 's leptinidstaphylin- 

 oid association. We admit that our tendency is to regard the larval 

 characters, based on mouth parts and organs of locomotion, as the 

 surer guide ; but we cannot conceal the differences that are apparent 

 in Forbes' views. 



Byrrhoidea. The larvae of this series are found to represent an- 

 other distinct polyphagous type, not linked by any larval type knowm 

 up to this time with the primitive Staphylinoidea. This type of larva 

 is in fact so distinct that Dr. Boving appears to have considered 

 founding a suborder thereon. However some of the derived families 

 of the byrrhoid type and some of the cucujoid tj^pe approach one 

 another. Wherefore Dr. Boving writes "rather isolated as the series 

 Byrrhoidea appears in the polyphagous suborder, it does not seem 

 necessary to rank it and the families and series derived from it as a 

 separate suborder." These families and series include, in Dr. 

 Boving 's conspectus, the remainder of the Coleoptera. The 



