118 fMay, 



next 3 = Strongylogastcr, C). Thrinax, Knw., Stromhoceros, Knw., Strongy log aster, 

 Dhlb., Eriocampa, Htg. (= Erincampa ovata, C), ['(ecilosoma, Dhlb.* — Thorns., 

 Emphytus, Klg., Taxonus, Hfcg. 



{c) DoLERiuES — Do Jeru.s, Jur., LotZertu-, Kiiw. (iiududed by C. under Doltrun). 



(/) Tenthkedines — Sciopteryx, Steph., Rliogogastera, Knw. (;= part of 

 Te)dhredo, C), Tenthredopsis, Costa, Perineura, Htg. (;^^ Syncermna, C), Pacliijpru- 

 tasis, Htg., Macropliya, Dhlb., AHaiitits, Jur. (certain spp. included by C. in 

 Tenthredu are removed by Knw. into tliis genus), Tcidhrcdo, Linn. (— = Tenthredu C. 

 less the spp. removed to Rlwgugastera and Allantus). 



(Tlie tribe named Tenthkedines is used by Konow for reasons which he has 

 kindly explained to me, so I i-etain it. But I think it a pity that the same word 

 should be used for a tribe and also for a genus, and must regret that he did not 

 rather call the tribe by some such name as Allantides). 



The main points of difference between the above system and that 

 of Cameron seem to be these. 



(1). Tiie general order is reversed. Konow ends with Tenthredo, with which 

 Cameron begins. 



(2). Konow breaks up into many new genera certain old ones (especially Nenia- 

 tus and Blennocarnpa) which Cameron on the whole keeps together. 



(3). A few genera (Dineura, Eriocampa) are completely revised by Konow, the 

 species formei'ly included in them passing not merely into different genera, but into 

 different tribes. 



(4). The genus Tenthreda is re-defined, and a number of species separated from 

 it, some passing into Allantiis, others into Rhoyugustera. 



As to the advantages of these changes I desire to avoid as much as possible 

 controversial matter in these papers. Jbiut 1 will venture to say that as to (1) 

 Konow's arrangement is no arbitary innovation, but follows the lines laid down by 

 Tiiomson— probably the best systematic entomologist that ever dealt with the 

 subject. As to (2), opinions will always differ about the precise point at which a 

 group of species becomes a " genus," and I doubt not that if (e. g.) Kohl or Hand- 

 lirsch had classified these insects they would liave made fewer genera out of the 

 old " Nemalus " than Konow has done. But, whether we choose to call them 

 genera or groups, tliey are at least well-defined, and practically I find them far too 

 helpful towards determining these puzzling insects to wisii them done away with. 

 While as to {•i} and (4), I can teel no doubt whatever that the changes proposed — 

 resting as they do on important, though previously scarcely noticed, points of 

 struoture — are not only desirable, but absolutely necessary and inevitable. 



The cliaracters which 1 shall now give for determination of these 

 Genera are maiidy talien from Konow's " Catalogus " of IS90 and 

 several of his more recent Monographs (Cephlni, Lydini, Siricini, &e.). 

 But 1 must take sole responsibility for the manner in which they are 

 here presented, as I have selected from amoug them, modified the 



* Dahlb. named it P(€cil(i»toma— probably a misprint ! 



