Introduction 17 



exceptional in the form of its beak and in certain other respects. It is 

 possible that it, hke Rhysodidse and Cupesidse, belongs to an old proto- 

 coleopterous family. 



DISCUSSION OF SYSTEM ADOPTED. 



As to the isolation of the Adephaga there is no dispute ; all authors 

 are in agreement on that point and every character, whether drawn 

 from the venation, the external or internal structure, the genitalia, or 

 the larval characters, support it. The case is different, however, with 

 the other groups. The separation of the Rhynchophora was proposed 

 by Leconte and urged in special papers on the subject;^ it has been 

 endorsed by Sharp and, to a less degree, by Kolbe; it has been opposed 

 by Lameere, Ganglbauer and Gahan on phylogenetic grounds because 

 they think the Rhynchophora are plainly derived from the Phytophaga, 

 or the two from a common source; it has also been opposed by Muir 

 because the genitalia are of the same type as those of the Phytophaga, 

 and in our country by Pierce." Numerically the opposition would rule, 

 but the following reasons .support Leconte's view. 



There can be little question that the Rhynchophora are the most 

 specialized of all beetles, remarkably distinct by the characters discovered 

 by Leconte, as well as by their legless larvse and the great development 

 of the snout. As I shall show presently, they seem to be the most 

 recent also of all beetles. That the links connecting them with their 

 ancestors, admittedly the Phytophaga (in part at least), have survived 

 is a result of then- recent origin and no argument against their isolation 

 if their characters otherwise warrant it. Had all the links survived, 

 the isolation of the Adephaga might be no greater than that of the Rhyn- 

 chophora. After trying to give due weight to the arguments to the 

 contrary, I can find nothing to balance the strong characters of rigid 

 palpi and single gular suture originally developed by Leconte and 

 repeated in the Rhynchophora of N. E. America,^ and I am still disposed 

 to follow Dr. Leconte in isolating Rhynchophora, but as a series, not a 

 sub-order, for reasons given below. 



The isolation of the Lamellicornia has also been recognized since 

 the days of Burmeister.^ They appear as a series in every system, no 

 element has ever been added or subtracted, there are no other beetles 



' .-^mer. Naturalist. VIII, 1874, pp. 385-396 and 4.52-470. 



= Studies of Weevils, etc. (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. LI, 1916, pp. 4(31-473). 



■' Rhynchophora or Weevils of Xorth Eastern America, lilatchley & Leng, Indianapolis, 1916. 



* Handbuch der Entomologie, III, 1842. 



