.US 



T\c.K sKoosnKnr. 



Sub-Family Philomedinae. 



Sub- Fa 111. Phihmedimie (part.), (i. W. Mi'i.M;i;, litlii, p. 'Jl. 



Why no description 

 of this sub-family if 

 tt'orkfd out. 



Dificiencies in llic 

 description of the 

 genus Philomedes. 



yiunber of genera. 



Reproduction of 



Pseudophilomcdes, 



Pleoschisma and 



Telragonodon. 



Reproduction of 



Philomedes. 



Diagnosis: — Cf. (.'. W. MOllkh, loc. cit. 



Remarks: — On account of the comparatively small miinbcr of species of this sub-family 

 that I liavc hail an opportuiiitv of investigating closely, it has not seemed convenient to me 

 to give in this connection a more detailed descri])ti()n of the sub-family than the one quoted 

 above, worked out by G. \Y. MVlAAin. Such a description would, in any case, be very uncertain 

 because of the uncertainty and incompleteness of the diagnoses and descriptions of the forms 

 hitherto given. 



A natural consequence of this is that several of the characters that in the present treatise 

 are included in the description of the gomis Philomedes are certain to be characters of the sub-family. 



Five genera of this sub-family have so far been established viz.: 

 PIiilo7)iedes, \V. Lii.L.iEnoRG, 1853, 

 Pleoschisma, G. S. Bn.vrjY, 1890, 

 Pseudophilomedes, G. W. MtlLLER, 1894, 

 Telragonodon, G. S. Brahv and A. M. NORMAN, 189(5. 

 Paramekodon, ,, ,, ,, ,, „ ,, ,, ,, 



In his svnoptic work of 1912 G. W. MUller approves of only two of these five genera, 

 viz. Philomedes and Pseudofhilomedes. The genera Pleoschisma and Telragonodon are in this 

 work included under the genus Philomedes; Paramekodon is identified with Pseudophilomedes. 



Unfortunately the descriptions of the species that are included in the genera Pleoschisma 

 and Telragonodon are very incomplete and presumably partly incorrect. It seems to me rather 

 probable, however, that this procedure of G. W. MULLER's is to be considered premature at 

 least in one point. As far as I can see at least the species included under Pleoschisma rejiresent 

 so different a type that they must be dealt with as a special genus. With regard to Telragonodon 

 it does not seem impossible to me that it must be regarded as a special unit, perhaps as a sub- 

 genus of the genus Philomedes. These questions can, however, only be decided after a renewed 

 investigation of these forms. — In the identification of Paramekodon with Pseudofhilomedes 

 MCLler certainly is correct. 



Oecology of reproduclion: — With regard to the phenomena connected with the repro- 

 duction nothing at aU is known about the species described under the names of Pseudophilomedes, 

 Pleoschisma and Telragonodon. 



The reproductive oecology of the genus Philomedes (sensu meo) has some very interesting 

 peculiarities to show. 



In the following exposition of some of these phenomena in the last- mentioned genus 

 attention will chiefly be paid to a single species, Ph. (Ph.) globosa (W. LILLJEBORG), This 

 seemed convenient to me partly because of the great part this species has played in the investi- 



