348 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



wing cleft from about three-fifths and one-fourth ; first segment 

 narrowly expanded posteriorly, sharply cut oft" terminally ; second 

 segment short, with distinct tornal angle, termen oblique, subcon- 

 cave ; third segment linear ; pale ferruginous, first two segments 

 blackish beyond two-thirds of wing, first segment conspicuously pure 

 white on outer third of segment, third segment irrorated with 

 blackish on outer third of its length. Cilia on costa blackish, on 

 termen white, within first cleft blackish, mixed with white near base 

 of cleft, on hinder margin of second segment greyish-white, on third 

 segment pale ferruginous ; on hinder margin of second segment 

 blackish tufts at two-thirds (length of hinder margin of segment) and 

 hinder angle ; on third segment a small blackish apical scale-tuft on 

 both margins, and a few blackish scales on dorsum beneath base of 

 second cleft. 



Hah. Ega (Bates). Type in British Museum Collection. 

 Pusa, Bengal : June 17th, 1911. 



ON SOME RECENT ATTEMPTS TO CLASSIFY THE 

 COLEOPTEEA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR 

 PHYLOGENY. 



By C. J. Gahan, M.A. 



(Published by Permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.) 

 (Continued from p. 314.) 



At no point, perhaps, does the classification of the Coleoptera 

 present greater difficulties than in the attempt to determine 

 the true relationships between the various families that enter 

 into the group Diversicornia. One of the difficulties arises no 

 doubt from the fact that some of these families have not 

 received their due share of attention, and that less is known 

 about them and their life-histories than there is about many 

 less interesting families belonging to more attractive groups. 

 Conclusions that may be drawn from a study of the external 

 morphology of the imagines alone are sometimes apt to be 

 upset, or at least not completely borne out by a study of the 

 corresponding larval forms. Certainly it is sometimes very sur- 

 prising to see what great differences there are between the larvas of 

 certain families which otherwise would be considered to be very 

 nearly related. And these differences are nowhere more marked 

 than in the case of some of the families placed in the group 

 Diversicornia. For this and for other reasons one is inclined to 

 suspect that it is not a monophyletic group, but must have 

 evolved from common ancestors in more than one direction, and 

 ought therefore to be capable of being split up into two or more 

 well-marked groups. But while admitting this, I confess to 

 finding serious difficulties in accepting the groups proposed 



