348 , TAGB SKOGSBBRG 



Sub-Family Philomedinae. 



S u b - F ii m. PhilomecUnae (part.). C. W. MCLLEit, 1912, p. 24. 



Diacjnosis: — Cf. G. W. Muller, loc. cit. 



iviiy no description Remarks: — On account of the comparatively small number of species of this sub-family 



^^ivolkeTm'a "' ^^^^ ^ have had an opportunity of investigating closely, it has not seemed convenient to me 



to give in this connection a more detailed description of the sub-family than the one quoted 



above, worked out by (1. W. Muleer. Such a description would, in any case, be very uncertain 



because of the uncertainty and incomjjleteness of the diagnoses and descriptions of the forms 



hitherto given. 



Dfficiencies in iiie A natural consequeuce of this is that several of the characters that in the present treatise 



e^cripw7i o u ^^^^ included in the description of the genus Philomedes are certain to be characters of the sub-family. 



genus Fnilomeaes. i o j 



Number oj genera. Five genera of this sub-family have so far been established viz.: 



Philomedes, \V. Ltlljeborg, 1853, 



Plenschisma, (I. S. BRADY, iSilO, 



Pseudofhilomedes, G. W. MULLER, 1894, 



Te/nKjnnodon, G. S. BliAD^' and A. M. NoRMAX, 1890. 



Pard.niekodnn, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 



In his synoptic work of 1912 G. W. Muller approves of only two of these five genera, 

 viz. Philomedes and Pseudofhilomedes. The genera Pleoschisma and Tetragonodon are in this 

 work included under the genus Philomedes; Paramekodon is identified with Pseudofhilomedes. 

 Unfortunately the descriptions of the species that are included in the genera Pleoschisma 

 and Tetragonodon are very incomplete and presumably partly incorrect. It seems to me rather 

 probable, however, that this procedure of G. W. Ml'LLER's is to be considered premature at 

 least in one point. As far as I can see at least the species included under Pleoschisma rej^resent 

 so different a type that they must be dealt with as a special genus. AVith regard to Tetragonodon 

 it does not seem impossible to me that it must be regarded as a special unit, perhaps as a sub- 

 genus of the genus Philomedes. These questions can, however, only be decided after a renewed 

 investigation of these forms. — In the identification of Paramekodon with PseudophUnmrdrs 

 ML'LLER certainly is correct. 



Heprodnciion of Oecologij (if reproduction: — With regard to the plu'iioinena coimected with the I'cpro- 



M, < op II o ,. ^[y^^.\\^)Y^ nothino; at all is known al^out the species desci'ilx'd undrr the names of Pseudophilomedes, 



rU'oscliisnio anil ~ 1 r ' 



Tetragonodon. Pleoscldsma and Tetragonodon. 

 lirproduciion of The reproductive oecology of the genus Philn)nedes (sensu iiu-o) has stmie very interesting 



Pliilonirdrs. i . ■ , • , , 



pecuuanties to show. 



In the following exposition of some of these plienoiiiena in the hist-meiitioned g(>niis 

 attention will ehielly he paid to a single species. Ph. (Ph.) globosa (W. LlM..n:r.Olul). This 

 seenie<l eoiivenierit to ine |);u'tl\' l)ee;i,iise ol' the great pnrt this species has phu'ed in the investi- 



