100 RHYNCHOPHORA. 



furnished with bristles or bristly tubercles and cioss raised lines) con- 

 tinued behind into two longer or shorter lobes (Kaulade) ; these are 

 sometimes bordered on their inner edges by a rather broad raised 

 bristly margin (Kaubiirste) ; the families may be divided as follows 

 (pp. 160-161). 



I. Digestive apparatus consisting only of the 



lobes, without plate. 

 i. Lobes without bristly raised margins 



(biirsten) CURCFLIONID.E. 



ii. Lobes with bristly raised margins . . RHYNCHCEMD.S:. 



II. Digestive apparatus consisting of the 

 lobes, and a front portion or plate of unequal 

 length with the lobes, this portion being 

 furnished with bristly tubercles (borsten) 



or cross raised lines RHYNCOLIDJE and HTLESINIDJB. 



III. Digestive apparatus consisting of lobes 

 and a plate, which are of equal length. 



i. Lobes without bristly raised margins . SCOLYTIDJE. 

 ii. Lobes with bristly raised margins . . TOMICID^:. 



I have just mentioned this Classification, which appears to give valuable 

 results, but is obviously beyond the ordinary student of the Coleoptera ; 

 at the same time it is certain that the internal as well as the external 

 structure of the various groups and families requires far more considera- 

 tion than has hitherto been bestowed upon it. 



In the present state of our knowledge the work on the group by 

 Bedel before alluded to (p. 104) appears to me to be the most valuable 

 that has yet appeared, and I have made considerable use of it ; he has, 

 however, missed the important character of the presence of a centro- 

 sternal piece in the Attelabidee and certain of the Khynchitidae, and his 

 figure of the prosternum oiAttelabus ( = Cyphus, PI. I. fig. 5) seems to be 

 incorrect ; he appears also to be wrong in removing Nanophyes from its 

 connection with Cionus and placing it with Apion (although it must be 

 allowed to be somewhat a transitionary genus) and in classing together 

 so many genera under Ceuthorrhynchus and Amalus ; in the latter case 

 perhaps we ought rather to say that he is premature ; in fact I was 

 inclined to follow him at first in this respect, but after some considera- 

 tion have rewritten portions of my work and again separated them, as 

 too much synthesis is apt to confuse the student, and in the present 

 state of our knowledge it is quite immaterial which course we adopt as 

 far as scientific accuracy is concerned. With regard to Bedel's nomen- 

 clature I cannot in many cases see that the numerous radical alterations 

 are necessary ; I have always agreed with Dr. Sharp in his views 

 regarding the changes so (apparently) unnecessarily introduced into the 

 European catalogue of Heyden Reitter and Weise (vide Vol. I. Preface, 

 p. vi.), and on this point cannot do better than quote his remarks under 

 the genus Attelabus (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1889, Part 1. p. 52) : 



" Quite recently Bedel has found in the fact that by the earlier 

 authors various genera were mixed under Aitelabus, a pretext for 



