fy 
behind. Subsequently Dr. Baly (Journ. Linn. Soc. XX) while 
accepting the prosternal structure as the basis of classifica- 
tion regards (not the closure of the cavities but) the relation 
between the prosternum and the hind margin of the antepectus 
as the true index of that structure, and indicates two forms of 
the relation in either of which the cavities may be either open or 
closed. He considers that both conditions of the cavities may 
exist within the limits of a genus. 
Now I venture to think that for the purposes of classification, 
at our present stage of knowledge, something else than the 
anatomical importance of characters ought to be taken into account 
—viz., the facility or otherwise of observing them. It is usually 
necessary to injure a specimen to find out even whether its coxal 
cavities are open or not; it is always necessary to do so in order 
to examine the relation between the prosternum and the hind- 
margin of the antepectus. I cannot but regard this proposal of 
Dr. Baly’s as somewhat of the nature of his classification of 
Paropsis where he finds a primary character in the internal 
organs of the hind body. 
The divergence between these specialists however suggests a 
doubt whether they agree practically as to the limits of a given 
genus and creates a great difficulty in dealing with the species 
they have described. I find Dr. Baly’s classification impracticable 
and greatly prefer to make use of Dr. Chapuis’. It appears to 
me however that even Dr. Chapuis is not quite clear in his 
definition of the terms “ open” and “ closed ” in dealing with the 
coxal cavities. He says that when the coxal cavities are open 
the base of the true prosternum (by which he means the hind 
margin, behind the coxe, of the middle part of the prosternum 
as a whole) does not join the inward prolongation of the pro- 
sternal epimera. But there are very few cases in which this 
juncture is absolutely wanting, and I find from the dissection of 
numerous specimens that his test practically is whether the base 
of the true prosternum meets the apex of the inward prolonga- 
tion of the epimera, or whether the apex of the epimera is freely 
applied against the coxa. In the former case (which is exempli- 
fied in Adimonia, Monolepta, &c.) Dr. Chapuis regards the coxal 
cavity as closed; in the latter (exemplified by Awlacophora, 
Luperus, &c.) he regards it as open. I treat the terms “open ” 
and “closed” (as applied to the coxal cavities) in this sense. 
OIDES. 
O. imsignipennis, sp. nov. Elongato-ovata; flava, antennis 
(articulis basalibus flavo-variegatis exceptis) vittisque in 
elytris 2 latissimis (his postice conjunctis) piceo-nigris, tibiis 
externe tarsisque infuscatis ; antennis robustis quam corpus 
