106 RHYNCHOPHORA. 
furnished with bristles or bristly tubereles and c1oss raised lines) con- 
tinued behind into two longer or shorter lobes (Kaulade); these are 
sometimes bordered on their inner edges by a rather broad raised 
bristly margin (Kaubirste); the families may be divided as follows 
(pp. 160-161). 
I. Digestive apparatus consisting only of the 
lobes, without plate. 
i. Lobes without bristly raised margins 
(biirsten) Teh a eee CURCULIONIDS. 
ii. Lobes with bristly raised margins . . RHYNCH@NIDE, 
Il. Digestive apparatus consisting of the 
lobes, and a front portion or plate of unequal 
length with the lobes, this portion being 
furnished with bristly tubercles (borsten) 
or cross raised lines . . . . . . . . RHYNCOLIDH and HYLESINIDE. 
Ill. Digestive apparatus consisting of lobes 
and a plate, which are of equal length. 
i. Lobes without bristly raised margins . SCOLYTIDH. 
ii. Lobes with bristly raised margins . . TOMICIDH. 
I have just mentioned this Classification, which appears to give valuable 
results, but is obviously beyond the ordinary student of the Coleoptera ; 
at the same time it is certain that the internal as well as the external 
structure of the various groups and families requires far more considera- 
tion than has hitherto been bestowed upon it. 
In the present state of our knowledge the work on the group by 
Bedel before alluded to (p. 104) appears to me to be the most valuable 
that has yet appeared, and I have made considerable use of it ; he has, 
however, missed the important character of the presence of a centro- 
sternal piece in the Attelabide and certain of the Rhynchitide, and his 
figure of the prosternum of Attelabus (=Cyphus, V1. I. fig. 5) seems to be 
incorrect ; he appears also to be wrong in removing Nanophyes from its 
connection with Cronus and placing it with Apion (although it must be 
allowed to be somewhat a transitionary genus) and in classing together 
so many genera under Ceuthorrhynchus and Amalus ; in the latter case 
perhaps we ought rather to say that he is premature; in fact I was 
inclined to follow him at first in this respect, but after some considera- 
tion have rewritten portions of my work and again separated them, as 
too much synthesis is apt to confuse the student, and in the present 
state of our knowledge it is quite immaterial which course we adopt as 
far as scientific accuracy is concerned. With regard to Bedel’s nomen- 
clature I cannot in many cases see that the numerous radical alterations 
are necessary; I have always agreed with Dr. Sharp in his views 
regarding the changes so (apparently) unnecessarily introduced into the 
European catalogue of Heyden Reitter and Weise (vide Vol. I. Preface, 
p. vi.), and on this point cannot do better than quote his remarks under 
the genus Attelabus (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1889, Part 1. p. 52) :— 
‘‘Quite recently Bedel has found in the fact that by the earlier 
authors various genera were mixed under A/telabus, a pretext for 
