CLASSIFICATION OF COLEOPTEKA. 169 



in all but two of the genera * examined belonging to the groups 

 Longicornia, Phytophaga, Rhynchophora, and Lamellicornia, 

 and only in genera belonging to those groups. 



The fact that testes of the simple type characterize the 

 Adephaga, while compound testes are found in all other beetles, 

 confirms again the division of the Coleoptera into two suborders. 

 But how are we to interpret the further fact that compound 

 testes of the pedicellate type are characteristic of the Phytophaga, 

 Ehynchophora, and Lamellicornia? Ganglbauer considers this 

 a fact of so much importance as to preclude the idea that those 

 groups have been derived from any other existing groups of 

 Polyphaga. The Ehynchophora probably are, he thinks, derived 

 from the Phytophaga ; but the origin of the Phytophaga and 

 Lamellicornia is doubtful, and must be looked for in some ancient 

 Malacoderm-like ancestors, but not in any still existing forms. 



Lameere and Kolbe attach less importance to the pedicellate 

 structure of the testes, and seem to think it may be derived in- 

 dependently from the other types met with in the Polyphaga. 

 Lameere would place the origin of the Lamellicornia and Phyto- 

 phaga near that of the Heteromera and Clavicornia in some 

 Cucuji-form ancestor. Kolbe also looks upon the Phytophaga, 

 Heteromera, and Clavicornia as nearly related groups, and thinks 

 the Phytophaga have been derived from primitive Clavicornia. 

 But he takes a different view with regard to the Lamellicornia. 

 He places this group and the Staphylinoidea together to form 

 the first of the two main divisions into which he subdivides the 

 Polyphaga, including in the same group with the Lamellicornia 

 the family Synteliidae, through which, he says, they show a 

 relationship with the Staphylinoidea. 



His reasons for this course will be discussed further on, 

 when we come to consider the characters derived from the 

 external anatomy. 



Not only are there the differences pointed out in the structure 

 of the testes themselves, but differences also in the number, 

 position, and origin of various accessory glands that open either 

 into the vasa deferentia, or arise from the common duct to which 

 they lead. Some of these are assumed to be, like the testes and 

 vasa deferentia, of mesodermal origin, while others are believed 

 to arise as ectodermal invaginations; and Escherisch has classed 

 them accordingly into mesadenia and ectadenia. When more 

 general conclusions can be drawn from them, they may play a 

 more important part in the classification. At present, though 

 used by Ganglbauer in characterizing the groups, they seem to 

 be of only doubtful value. 



■''■ Timarcha and Melasoma. Ganglbauer suggests that these exceptions 

 may not be real ones, since a mistake may have arisen from a confusion of 

 names ; but I have reason to believe that no mistake has occurred. 



(To be continued.) 



