218 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Lameere that the Prionidse are the most primitive of the Ph5'to- 

 phaga, and in the genus Parandra they recognize the form 

 which they consider to be the most primitive of all. This genus 

 has a considerable resemblance in general form and in the 

 structure of the antennae to the Passandrini and other Cucujidse, 

 which they look upon as the most primitive of the Clavicornia. 



In Ganglbauer's opinion, Parandra is by no means the most 

 primitive but rather a considerably modified form of the 

 Prionidae, and its resemblance to the Passandrini he attributes 

 to convergence resulting from a similarity in habits of life, a 

 view with which I quite concur. 



Not less significant than the resemblance in the form and 

 structure of the antennae between Parandra and the Passandrini 

 is, I think, the fact that the antennae are frequently strongly 

 serrate, pectinate, or fiabellate, in many of the lower and less 

 specialized genera of Longicorns, and only rarely so in those of 

 the higher groups of the same family. 



But while it is true, as Kolbe points out, that the brush-like 

 sole and crypto-pentamerous condition of the tarsi characteristic 

 of the Phytophaga is met with also in some of the Clavicornia, 

 no great significance need be attached to that fact. It is only in 

 the more modified forms of each group that the resemblance is 

 very great. In many genera of Elateridse and Cleridse, and in 

 some Dascilloidea, the fourth tarsal joint is as much reduced in 

 size as it is generally in the Phytophaga. 



In endeavouring to trace back the origin of the Longicorns, 

 wing-venation does not greatly help us. Its least modified 

 condition in this family is to be found in the Lepturini and 

 Philini, and here its resemblance to that of the Clavicornia and 

 Heteromera is tolerably close, and does not preclude the sup- 

 position that these groups and the Longicorns may have had the 

 same or very closely related ancestors. On the other hand, it is 

 just as close, perhaps even more so, to that of the Dascilloidea, 

 a group which takes us back still nearer to the Malacoderms. 



But whatever may be the correct view as to the origin of the 

 Phytophaga, the question still remains, Did they or did they not 

 originate at an earlier date than the Lamellicornia ? Ganglbauer 

 believes they did ; but against his view, which certainly has 

 some strong points in its favour, we have to consider the simple 

 pentamerous condition of the tarsi in the Lamellicornia, the 

 separation of the sternites and pleurae of the second and third 

 abdominal segments, the lesser number of the Malpighian 

 vessels, and also what appears to be the less specialized struc- 

 ture of the larvae in this group. The last point is of little 

 importance ; larvae are subject to many secondary modifications, 

 and the Lamellicorn larvae are in some respects perhaps even 

 more modified than those of the Longicorns. But the other 

 points are significant, and seem to favour the view that the 



