CLASSIFICATION OF THE ASCALAPIFIDiE. 221 



Zeitung,' a synonymic list of the species of the restricted genus 

 Ascalaphus. In 18GG the same author brought forward his ' He- 

 merobidarum Synopsis Synonymica' in the same publication. 

 His generic synopsis of the family contains no neAv elements, 

 and is an attempt at grouping the described species under the 

 generic divisions already indicated by Burmeister, Lefebvre, 

 Eambur, and Westwood. As a laborious compilation and index- 

 list of names, this work is invaluable; but I have been unable 

 to adopt the author's views in many cases. It was intended 

 only as a starting-point, and, as such, admirably serves its 

 purpose. 



1)1 18G8 Brauer, in the ' Verhandlungen der kais.-honigl. 

 zoologisch-botaniscben Gescllschaft in Wieu,' published bis 

 " Verzeichniss der bis jetz bekannten Neuropteren im Sinne 

 Linne's ; erster Abschnitt." His arrangement of the family is 

 only an echo of that of Hagen. 



My examination of the family has resulted in its division into 

 tweaity-seven generic groups, including several forms not hitherto 

 noticed. It may possibly be objected that I have carried sub- 

 division to too great a length. To this I would reply that with- 

 out doubt a still greater disintegration will become necessary. It 

 must be remembered that a knowledge of almost any Neuropte- 

 rous family may be considered half a century behind that of the 

 more favoured orders, such as Coleoptera, where subdivision has 

 been carried to great minuteness of distinction. And, for my 

 part, I would decidedly express myself in favour of minute sub- 

 division, ratbcr than of the principle of retaining numerous 

 species under one generic heading. Tew, I imagine, now believe 

 in the existence of groups sharply defined by nature, and co- 

 equal in value, such as formed the ideals of the older authors ; 

 and, granting this, it is to me a far greater aid to memory to 

 have many groups, each with a special name, than to be put to 

 the inconvenience of retaining in memory the characters of mul- 

 titudinous unnamed sections of one large genus : in the former 

 case the name recalls the characters; in the latter the sec- 

 tions, indicated probably by numbers or signs, mix themselves 

 inextricably. 



An attempt to arrange the described species under the new ge- 

 ncric divisions, and a recapitulation of twenty-three species dia- 

 gnosed as new, results in about 103 species now known. The 

 number as catalogued by Walker is much reduced, owing to many 



10* 



