128 Mr. Walter F. H. Blandford on the 
doubt as to the correct interpretation of the sexes by 
Chapuis (“ Die eur. Borkenk.,” p. 306, note). M. Bedel 
(“« Coléop. du bassin de la Seine,” vi., p. 40+) inverts the 
sexes of P. cylindrus, as given by Chapuis, though with- 
out comment; he has kindly informed me that he was 
led by Hichhoff’s expression of doubt to dissect dried 
examples of P. cylindrus, which led him to the conclusion 
that Chapuis was wrong. Now Chapuis was probably 
guided by the generalisation of Perris, since disproved 
for the Tomicint by Lindeman and Hichhoff, that in the 
Scolytide a greater development of the elytral armature 
was a female characteristic, and by the sexual features 
of certain species of Crossotarsus, in which the antennee 
have the scape remarkably developed in the sex that he 
indicates as the male. ‘his antennal development, 
together with the deeply excavate and fringed front in 
the same sex of some species, and the more developed 
legs of the opposite sex (in Crossofarsus), which agree 
with the sexual features of the Scolyto-platypini, - are 
not easily reconciled with the usual sexual characters, if 
the sexes are reversed; but the opposite may be said of 
the constantly stronger elytral armature of the females 
(Chap.), and their occasional possession of abdominal 
armature (Crossotarsi genuini, Platypus blanchardi) or of 
a concave and short abdomen (Crossotarst). It is 
obvious that external sexual characters are not constant 
among the Scolytide, and that little dependence can be 
placed on them. The question can only be decided by 
direct examination of the generative organs. Like 
M. Bedel, I have examined them in dried specimens of 
P. cylindrus, and also of Crossotarsus wallacet. ‘This 
examination has given results which leave me little doubt 
in the matter; but it so difficult, in these cases, to 
correctly interpret the structures exhibited in dried 
specimens, that I do not feel justified at present in 
publishing my conclusions. I can, however, say that 
the sexes of those two species, as given by Chapuis, 
correspond, and there is no evidence of his having 
indicated them rightly in some genera and erroneously 
in others. He is entirely right or entirely wrong. For 
the present, therefore, | prefer to describe the sexes in 
accordance with Chapuis, as a matter of convenience 
solely, and without implying acquiescence in his views. 
