32 THE NATUBAL HISTOET EEVIEW, 



metamorpliosis, appears sadly diminislied in importance — it includes 

 only the Planipennia of Latreille, and the Trichoptera of English 

 authors, with the addition, as already stated, of the singular Strep- 

 sipterous Bee-parasites. The latter are regarded by Dr. Gerstaecker 

 as most nearly allied to the Phryganidse, with which, he says, they 

 *' agree in the structure of the pro thorax, the free, elongated anterior 

 and middle coxae, the rudimentary oral organs, of which the maxillae are 

 amalgamated in a similar manner with the labium, and likewise in the 

 radiate venation of the posterior wings," and he cites, as a further 

 proof of this relationship, " the branchiiform respiratory organs de- 

 tected by Newport on the abdominal segments of the larvse of the 

 Strepsiptera" (p. 79). It does not appear to us, however, that Dr. 

 Grerstaecker has by any means made out his case in favour of the Neu- 

 ropterous nature of the Strepsiptera, — the characters adduced by him 

 in proof of their relationship to the Trichoptera are for the most part 

 non-essential, and the peculiar organs noticed by Newport, upon which 

 Dr. Grerstaecker lays so much stress, are only supposititiously regarded 

 by him "as imperfect respiratory organs of the nature of branchiae." 

 The balance of evidence, especially that derived from the life-history 

 of these curious parasites, seems to preponderate greatly, as shown 

 by Dr. Schaum in a recent paper in Wiegmann's Archiv, in favour of 

 their Coleopterous nature, almost all their most striking peculiarities 

 being paralleled among the Coleoptera by the Meloidae. 



The division of the Coleoptera into characterisable groups higher 

 than the natural families is certainly one of the greatest difficulties 

 with which Entomologists have to contend, and Dr. Gerstaecker has 

 been unable to get over it. He accordingly adopts the old Latreillian 

 divisions in accordance with the number of joints of the tarsi, 

 although he admits that it is liable to many exceptions in the Penta- 

 merous group, and brings together, under the common term Hete- 

 romera, the most " heterogeneous elements." In otlier respects the 

 author has been most fortunate in his elaboration of the analysis of 

 the Coleoptera, and especially in his selection of characteristic 

 genera, which must have been a work of no small labour in a group 

 so extensive. 



Passing over the order Hymenoptera, our author's treatment of 

 which presents no peculiarity calling for special notice, we must 

 object strongly to his primary division of the Lepidoptera into two 

 groups, denominated from the general size of the species in each, 

 Macro- and Micro-lepidoptera. It may be true that certain charac- 



