292 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



k Median pair of spines of the ninth abdominal ter- 

 gite distinctly longer than any of the other tergal 



spines E r o t y 1 i d a e 



hk Median pair of spines of the ninth abdominal ter- 

 gite not longer, all the tergal spines snbequal in 



length Coccinellidae 



/(■ Body sometimes covered with fine, translucent setae 

 but never with elongate blacli or brownish chitinized 

 spines 

 ;■ Body covered with fine clavate setae 

 k Ninth abdominal tergum with a pair of short, 



stout, chitinized spines Erotylidae 



kk Ninth abdominal tergum not with a pair of stout 



chitinized spines E n d o m y c h i d a e 



jj Body not covered with clavate setae 



k Body completely covered with a white flocculent 

 mass; larvae aphidivorous.. .Coccinellidae 

 kk Body never covered with a white flocculent mass 

 I Larvae provided with abdominal prolegs on at 

 least one abdominal segment 



C h r y s o m e 1 i d a e 

 II Larvae not provided with abdominal prolegs 

 III Thorax abruptly broader than the head and 

 abdomen; living in burrows of mud or sand 



In wet places Heteroceridae 



null Thorax not distinctly broader than the abdo- 

 men, if broader, only gradually so and then 

 only the prothorax marlcedly so 

 n Tergum or sternum or both with distinct 

 chitinized areas, frequently prominent, 

 proleglilse 

 Body usually depressed; the distance be- 

 tween the prothoracic legs greater than 

 the length of the legs 



Cerambycidae 

 00 Body usually cylindrical; the distance be- 

 tween the prothoracic legs not as great 

 as the length of the legs 



Oedemeridae 

 nil Tergum or sternum never with distinct chiti- 

 nized areas 



Ninth abdominal tergite with two or more 

 short cuticular spines 

 I) Apex of the abdomen obliquely trun- 

 cate; antennaei with three segments 



C i i d a e 



iln counting the segments of the antennae, it is frequently difficult to 

 determine whether the enlarged globular basal portion should be counted 

 as a segment or not. Some writers have considered it simply as a pro- 

 tuberauce of the head, Avhile otliers have looked on it as the first antennal 

 segment. In this table it is considered as a distinct segment. 



