Longicornia Malayana. 3 



It is probable that when the species of these genera come to be 

 examined more carefully for description, a slight discrepancy may 

 appear, but this may be more or less as regards numbers, and will 

 not affect our conclusions. On the other hand, it is extremely 

 probable that the number of Australian species belonging to the 

 above genera will be increased. 



It is unnecessary to go into the history of the classification 

 of the Longicornia. Dr. Leconte, in the " Journal of the Academy 

 of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia" (1849-51), was the first to 

 put forward a really philosophical arrangement of them, but, un- 

 fortunately, his knowledge was almost entirely confined to the 

 species found in North America. M. James Thomson, in his 

 " Essai d'une Classification de la Famille de Cerambycides" (1860), 

 has more fully carried out this system,* and at present this is the 

 only work which treats of the whole of the genera of the Longicorn 

 families. 



If we must consider the Coleoptera to be entitled to no higher 

 than ordinal rank, it will tend to simplify the classification if we 

 call the Longicornia a "sub-order.'^ Following Leconte, we shall 

 then have the three families of Lamiidce, Cerambycidce and Prionidce. 

 These I propose to divide into " sub-families." We then come to 

 the genera and species. If, for the sake of convenience, other 

 divisions are required, it seems to me that it will be enough to 

 constitute " sections," which may be numbered, but, to avoid con- 

 fusion, not named, j- 



Pacific Islands. With regard to the Coleoptera generally, my impression is that 

 there is a fair admixture of forms from Singapore to New Guinea, without any 

 remarkable division between them anywhere; but that between the Australian 

 and Malayan regions (including New Guinea) the difference, on the contrary, is 

 really something marvellous. 



* Some excellent remarks by Mr. Bates on M. Thomson's work will be found 

 in the " Annals and Magazine of Natural History," ser. 3, viii. 41 et seq. 

 Mr. Bales thinks the position of the " Lepturitce" as a group subordinate to the 

 Ceramhycidee is untenable, but then he considers that the Disteniie should form a 

 ''distinct tribe," and also that the " PseudolepturittE " of Thomson "will require 

 probably the institution of one or more distinct tribes." 



t The complicated ramifications into tribes, groups, races, cohorts, legions, 

 branches, divisions, series, sections, and these again into su6-tribes, su?^-groups, 

 &c. &c., to say nothing of the "slirps" and the "phalanx," whose plurals in 

 English 1 cannot venture to determine, all more or less employed in systematic 

 works, and their application varying with every author, or even in the works of 

 the same author, are such as to make zoological classification an affair of the 

 most involved and indefinite character. It is frequently very difficult to ascertain 

 what are equivalent groups, when we pass from one order or one author to 

 another J the family of one author, for example, becomes the tribe, or the stirps, 



B 2 



