Horn.] 



OTIOKHYN^CHID^. 15 



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

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

 subject since Lacordaire acknowledge the affinities. I might cite Leptops 

 and Entimus in their approximation to Cyphus and Bhigus, the separation 

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

 Artipus from its present veiy 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. £>iirt:d,i^ 



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 antennae are strongly 

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

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



The following tribes are represented in our fauna : 

 Thorax without ocular lobes. 



Antennal grooves (scrobes) lateral directed 



inferiorly BRACHYDERl^iJ. /.ug, it 



Antennal grooves short, superior, rarely late- 

 ral, and then directed toward the eyes OTiORHYHrcHINI. h^at ^^ 



Thorax with ocular lobes more or less distinct. 

 Mentum at least moderate, concealing in great 

 part or entirely the maxillse. Mandibles ro- 

 bust not prominent, scar very evident OPHRYASTINI. ^u^ci-j 



Mentum very small, maxillae exposed, mandi- 

 bles prominent, free edge rather thin, scar 



small, very narrow DiROXOOMATHiivi. p«jt if 



As will be seen by the above table the 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 fimbrise become more evident. In the former 

 tribe there are no evidences whatever of either ocular lobes or fimbriaj. 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 



