576 Mr. D. Sharp and Mr. F. Miiir on the Covijmrative 



broad median struts, and from the base proceed two long, flattened 

 supports (a) that connect it to the lateral lobes. No differentiated 

 internal sac. 



Aesalus scarabaeoides. 



Has a long, tubular median lobe, slightly curved ; median 

 orifice at distal end and median foramen at base. Tegmen con- 

 sisting of a small ring-shaped basal-piece with narrow (almost 

 hair-like) lateral lobes about two-thirds as long as the median 

 lobe, and closely appressed thereto ; these are all amalgamated 

 at base and show no articulation. Internal sac not observed. 

 This distinct form is worthy of more investigation. We have had 

 only one example at our disposal. 



Nicagus ohscurus. 



Since our paper was written Mr. Schwarz has kindly 

 given F. Muir an opportunity of dissecting this problem- 

 atic form, and he finds that it is a Lucanid, not a Scarabaeid. 

 The description and remarks on its affinities must be 

 published elsewhere. 



Sinodendron rylindricv,m (PI. XLIII figs. 9 and 9«). 



The median lobe is small, curved, tubular and highly chitinised ; 

 the median orifice at the distal end ; the median foramen, a long 

 narrow opening along the ventral basal aspect ; a pair of large 

 median struts are articulated to the base ; the point of articulation 

 has a dorso-basal position. The lateral lobes are small, concave 

 across the inner side (a) where the median lobe lies. The basal piece 

 forms a large, strongly chitinised tube. The internal sac undifferen- 

 tiated, the basal part {h) is always protruding from the median 

 orifice. 



In the Lucanidae there are several types of aedeagus, 

 but they all differ from the Scarabaeidae in having a well- 

 developed chitinous, exposed median lobe, and the internal 

 sac is never developed to so great an extent as in the 

 Scarabaeidae, unless we consider the flagellura as a modi- 

 fied sac. In that case the sac m the forms of the two 

 families may be said to be very different. 



In our taxonomical table we have suggested a division 

 of Lucanidae into three families, Lucanidae, Lamprimidae 

 and Sinodendronidae. This seems necessary if Trogidae 

 are separated from Lucanidae. The alternative is to unite 

 the five divisions, Trogidae, Scarabaeidae, Lucanidae, 

 Lamprimidae and Sinodendronidae into a single family. 



