CLASSIFICATION OF COLEOPTERA. 395 



associates together the Dermestidfe, Byrrhidae, and Nosodendridse 

 in another group — the Brachymera. 



Coming next to a consideration of the Clavicornia, we find 

 Kolbe in much closer agreement with the views of Lameere 

 although here also there is the slight difference, already noted — 

 the inclusion in the group by Lameere (but with doubt) of two 

 families, the Cioidfe and Sphindid^e, which Kolbe places in the 

 Bostrichoidea ; and there is this further and important diffe- 

 rence, that Kolbe places the Clavicornia after, not before, the 

 Heteromera. If I had to accept the Clavicornia as a distinct 

 and separate group, independent in origin from the rest of the 

 Diversicornia, I certainly should side with Kolbe in placing them 

 after the Heteromera. There are no doubt points of resemblance 

 both amongst the larvae and the adults, suggesting a somewhat 

 close affinity between the Heteromera and the Clavicornia, but I 

 consider the latter to be on the whole a more highly specialized 

 group, and one of minor value, that might readily enough be 

 derived from some other of the Diversicornia. 



The Heteromera show a considerable amount of diversity in 

 their structure, and it has been suggested, perhaps more than 

 once, that they are not really a natural series, and might be 

 better placed, scattered among various other groups of Coleoptera. 

 That heresy, I am glad to say, has met with no favour from any 

 one of our three authors. They agree to look upon the Hetero- 

 mera as a perfectly natural and monophyletic family series. In 

 no other way, except as derived from a common ancestor, can 

 they explain the complete disappearance of the missing segment 

 of the hind tarsus, a character met with in every member of the 

 group without a single exception. That character, moreover, 

 does not stand alone, for an intimate study of the different 

 families included in the group tends to show that the view as to 

 their common relationship is on other grounds also well justified. 

 But at what period in the history of the Coleoptera did the first 

 Heteromeron appear ? Were the Clavicorns then in course of 

 being difxerentiated into a group such as we now know them ? 

 It is extremely doubtful ; and I know of no ancestral feature 

 exhibited by the Clavicorns that would lead us to consider them 

 of earlier origin than the more primitive of the families of 

 Heteromera. The genus Phrenapates, between which and some 

 of the more primitive Clavicorns my friend Lameere finds points 

 of affinity, has no right to be regarded otherwise than as a highly 

 specialized form of Heteromeron, and the family to which it 

 belongs — the Tenebrionidae — no claim whatever to the first place 

 in the family series. In his suggested arrangement of the 

 families in this series, Lameere is considerably at variance with 

 Ganglbauer and Kolbe, and my own opinion in the matter is 

 that his arrangement is wrong, and that the course of develop- 



2g2 



