I''*' TAGE SKOOSBBRG 



Philoineden 



Sub-family II. Philotnedinac ., three genera . PseudofhiluiiwiU's 



\ 



Rutiderma 



111. Sarsiellinae ,, one gemi« Sarsidla 



( Asterope 



IV. Asterofinae .. two geiiei-a 



Cyclasteru'pc. 



Of these genera (i. \\. Mullek writes: 



Philomedes as a synonym of Telragonodoit 



Pseudophiloini'.drs ,, „ ,, .. Paramekodon 



j Streptoleberis 

 Sarsiella ,, ,, ,, .. \ Eurypylus 



\ Nematuhaiitmu 

 XtiinbiT of species. In his synoptic work in ,,D as T i e r r e i c h", 1912, tiiis author records 155 recent 



species of this sub-order, 105 of which would be ,, certain", 50 ,, uncertain". The proportion 

 between ,, certain" and ,, uncertain" is, however, much more in favour of the latter category, 

 a fact that I have unfortunately been only too often reminded of during my study of this group. 

 After this work of Gr. W. MUller some additional species, though only a few, have been incor- 

 jjorated in the literature of this group. 



.yriiiirai si/si,i,i. Remarks: — The difference between the two above-mentioned divisions of this sub-order 



worked out by G. S. Bhady— A. M. NoRMAN and G. W. MULLER is, as is seen at the first glance, 

 not profound. Two divergencies are to be noted. First G. ^^'. Mu^LHR has removed the genera 

 Philomedes and Pseudophilomedes from G. S. BitADV's and A. M. Norman's family Cyprklinidae 

 and of these lias f(jrmed a new systematic unit, the sub-family Philomedinae, ranged with the 

 sub-family Cypridinmae, which includes all the remaining genera of the above-named family, 

 and with the sub-families Sarsiellinae and Astewpinae. Secondly tlie same author has adopted 

 the genus Rutiderma in the new sub-family Philomedinae, which genus had formerly been 

 distingviished by G. S. Bhad^' and A. M. Nor.man as a representative of a special family Ruti- 

 dermatidae, ranged with tlie y p r i d i n i d s, S a r s i e 1 1 i d s and A s t e r o p i il s. 



\\'hich of these divisions is preferable? Is any of them ([uite natural or is none at 

 all suitable to be accepted without alteration? 



A thorough study of the forms belonging here has led me to the following conclusions: 



The separation attempted by (1. W. Mi'LLER of the genera Philomedes and Pseudophilo- 

 medes from the genera Cypridina, Pyrocypris, Crossophorus, Codonocera and Giganloeypris 

 is undoubtedly at least partly justified. The two first-mentioned genera are, as is clearly shown 

 by the descriptions given by G. W. MtlLLER and by those 1 have worked out below, decidedly 

 opposed to the genera enumerated after them in so many respects that they must necessarily 

 be separated systematically from the latter. 



This, however, does not prevent the division given by G. 8. BR ADV and A. M. NORMAN 

 Irom liaving its advantages. The sub-families Cypridininae and Philomedinae are, it is true, 

 well differentiated from each other, but on the other hand they are considerabh' nu>re closely 



