284 
Liparetriis, as characterised by Burmeister, that the preced- 
ing remarks refer. 
The previous authors who attempted more or less groujD- 
ing of the Liparetri known to them were Burmeister, Blan- 
chard, and Macleay. Burmeister characterised his main 
groups according to the relative length of the joints of the 
hind tarsi — a system fairly easy to apply, but supremely un- 
natural in result. Blanchard founded his groups on antennal 
structure alone, and <his system also leads to unnatural 
grouping, and in some cases requires use of a microscope. 
Macleay took the antennal structure as the basis of his classi- 
fication, with the nature of the sexual distinctions, as indi- 
cating secondary aggregates — a system which is not only open 
to the same objection as Blanchard's, but also is vitiated by 
the existence of many species of which only one sex is known. 
I am unable, however, to Una any method of grouping the 
Jjiparetri which will avoid relying upon the characters tnat 
I have referred to as unsatisfactory. I hope, nevertheless, to 
combine them in such fashion as will furnish a tabulation by 
which few species will be difficult of identification, although 
I can make no claim for my aggregates of being more iidtural 
groups than those of the authors T have referred to above. 
I divide the genus into 19 groups, on each of which separately 
I append some remarks, but it seems more convenient to make 
the tahnlation of the species a continuous one than to pro- 
vide 19 separate tabulations. 
In stating the number of the external teeth of the front 
tibiae I have included the apical projection of the tibiae as a 
tooth. These teeth do not, I find, as a rule, vary sexually in 
any marked degree, though they certainly appear to vary in 
size somewhat in individuals of the same sex. In some 
species (e.g., discijJennis, Guer.), with bidentate front tibiae, 
the upper tooth is very feeble in some specimens as compared 
with others, and it is usually most feeble in the males ; but 
where it is well defined in tlie female it is always, as far as 
my observation goes, not actually wanting in tlie males. The 
species showing the greatest sexual disparity, known to me, 
in this, respect is Jj. discipennix. In the closely allied />. 
canescens, MacL, I do not find any sexual difference whatever 
in the armature of the front tibiae. 
Before I pass to the tabulated statement of the charac- 
ters of the species, a list of the names that have to be sunk 
as synonyms, and some brief notes on the species that I have 
had to omit from the tabulation, seem to be required. I 
place the names that must be sunk as synonyms 
in alphabetical order, setting against each the name 
