Horn.] 



OTIORHYIfCHID^. 15 



dividing this family, I have found that genera are thereby approximated 

 Avhicli are now widely separated, and of which the best authorities on the 

 subject since Lacordaire acknowledge the afflnities. I might cite Leptops 

 and Entiiaus in their approximation to Gyphus and Bhigus, the separation 

 of Brachystylus from the Otiorhynchi and its position near Cyphus as well as 

 Artipus from its present very unnatural position to a place near Cyphus. 

 The character is therefore suggested as a better method of subdivision, 

 although it is not claimed that it will in all cases be found infallible. A 

 very limited study of the Rhynchophora will soon produce a conviction 

 that there is on the one hand a great permanency of type of construction, 

 and when variation of detail does occur, it is so gradual as to leave no 

 abrupt lines of division. 



DIVISION I. 



This division contains those genera in which the mesosternal epimera are 

 small, or at most moderate, the episterna in contact with the elytral margin, 

 the metasternal side-pieces rarely of more than moderate width and not 

 dilated at anterior end, and without the triangular process projecting 

 between the mes-epimera and the metasternum. The other characters of 

 the division are extremely variable, in all, however, the antennoe are strongly 

 geniculate. All the genera of this Division in our fauna have a large men- 

 tum concealing entirely the maxillae, excepting in the last tribe. 



The following tribes are represented in our fauna : 

 Thorax without ocular lobes. 



Antennal grooves (scrobes) lateral directed 



inferiorly bbachy»ERIMI. 



Antennal grooves short, superior, rarely late- 

 ral, and then directed toward the eyes OTiORHYBfCHIKI. 



Thorax with ocular lobes more or less distinct. 

 Mentum at least moderate, concealing in great 

 part or entirely the maxillae. Mandibles ro- 

 bust not prominent, scar very evident ophryastini. 



Mentum very small, maxillae exposed, mandi- 

 bles prominent, free edge rather thin, scar 



small, very narrow DiROroGMATHlNl. 



As will be seen by the above table thQ presence or absence of ocular 

 lobes affords the only means of separating the tribes Brachyderini and 

 Ophryastini, and the character must be strictly interpreted. The latter 

 tribe has the ocular lobes sometimes very feeble and almost wanting, but 

 as the lobes disappear the fimbriae become more evident. In the former 

 tribe there are no evidences whatever of either ocular lobes or fimbria;. In 

 one genus, the prosternum is more emarginate than usual, giving an 

 appearance of slight ocular lobes, but no traces whatever of fimbriae are 

 seen. In some of the genera of Ophryastini, the metasternal side pieces 

 become of moderate width, showing somewhat of an approximation to the 



