170 Rev. A. Matthews on the ‘Classification of 
on this ground, either in an ascending or descending seale, 
occupy the two extremes of the entire order. In his ‘ Rhyn- 
chophora of America,’ published at Philadelphia in 1876, 
Dr. LeConte has discussed this matter at some length, and, 
choosing the descending scale, has placed the Rhynchophora 
at the end of the Coleoptera. 
If his views on this point are correct, as I believe them to 
be, it will naturally follow that the Lamellicornia should be 
placed first. Such an arrangement would at once rectify the 
confusion caused by the interpolation of the Lamellicornia 
between series unconnected with them, but closely allied to 
each other ; harmony would be effected by the elimination of 
the element of discord, and the Lamellicornia would occupy 
the position for which by high development and homogeneity 
among themselves they are preeminently qualified. 
But to return to the work before us ; the American authors 
have named the last series of the Isomera “* Phytophaga,” 
and have included in that series the whole of the properly 
Tetramerous Coleoptera. This arrangement seems open to 
objection on account of the heterogeneous assemblage of 
genera thus brought together. The authors themselves 
appear conscious of this, and justify the amalgamation on the 
ground that no definitive characters can be assigned to war- 
rant their separation. But though anatomical differences 
among these families may not be sufficient or sufficiently 
persistent to form an intelligible tabulation, yet the general 
appearance or facies of almost every species is obvious enough 
to determine its proper position without much difficulty. On 
the whole it would, I think, be preferable to retain the serial 
separation of Longicornia and Monilicornia, of which the 
former in their larval condition as a rule feed on wood, and 
the latter on foliage. These alterations would tend to im- 
prove the continuity of its various series, and render the Iso- 
merous complex more harmonious than it has hitherto been. 
Having disposed of the Isomera, our authors place the 
Heteromera next in succession. ‘This arrangement is a mani- 
fest improvement upon previous systems; for it is absurd to 
break the line of the Isomera by interposing a group whose 
very name indicates antagonism; and besides this the Hete- 
romera, by their varied and mimetic forms, seem intended for 
a natural epitome of all the Isomerous series. 
The Rhynchophora, as a suborder, conclude the whole 
system; nor could they hold any other position without 
breaking through the anatomical relations which prevail 
throughout the other groups. But this question has been 
argued at length by Dr. LeConte many years ago, and need 
not be noticed now. 
