G26 Goleo2oterological Notices, VI. 



Tarsal claws appendiculate ; eyes emarginate and finely faceted; neck wide; 



maxillary palpi slender Nkm atoplini 



Tarsiil claws not appendiculate. 



Neck wide; eyes large, finely faceted and generally emarginate; basal seg- 

 ment of the abdomen not elongate. 

 Prothorax constricted at apex and margined at base; tarsal claws simple 



or with a feeble dentiform dilatation at base EURYGENIIXI 



Prothorax not constricted at apex, margined at base; tarsal claws with 

 a pointed lamelliform tooth internally at base, the apical part 



abruptly bent Pedilini 



Neck narrow; eyes not emarginate; prothorax constricted at apex. 



Eyes large, oval, rather finely faceted; basal segment of the abdomen 



elongate ; claws somewhat as in Pedilini M ACRATKIIXI 



Eyes small, rounded, not emarginate, generally coarsely faceted; basal 

 segment of the abdomen not conspicuously elongate; claws simple. 



Anthicixi 



The first four of these tribes are arboreal in habit, the fifth epi- 

 geal. The Xj'lophilinse are arboreal, and it might therefore be 

 considered best to put them at the head of the familj^ instead of 

 immediately succeeding the Anthicini ; but it will be observed 

 that the Xylophilinse differ quite as much, if not more, from the 

 Eurygeniini as from the Anthicini, and it is therefore immaterial 

 where we place them. Again, the apical constriction of the pro- 

 thorax, which is such a constant and peculiar feature of the An- 

 thicini, is even more strongly developed in the Eurygeniini, and 

 is altogether obsolete in Xylophilin;^ ; the eyes are finely faceted 

 in all the larger forms constituting the first tribes, coarsely so in 

 Anthicini and generally very coarsely so in Xylophilinse ; so, con- 

 sidering the question from all points of view and having due re- 

 gard to the small size and less highly developed structure, as 

 shown by the amalgamated basal segments of the abdomen, it 

 seems more fitting to place the subfamily at the end of the series. 



Concerning the erection of a distinct family for the Xylophi- 

 linae, as proposed by Mr. Champion, I regret to have to disagree. 

 The sclerites of the under surface, especially near and between 

 the middle coxa^, are identical in Anthicus and Xylophilus, ex- 

 cept that the mesosternal [process in the latter is not quite so 

 long, and there is, besides, a certain indefinable habitus possessed 

 by the two t^^Des in common, which seems to show that they 

 should not be Avidely separated. 



