856 ZOOLOGY— INSECTS. 



&c Although these divarications from the typical form are con- 

 siderable, and possibly may require their separation into a distinct group, 

 as I have used the term in my classification, yet I do not think they will 

 justify raising- the division to the dignity of a subfamily." 



In regard to the Trigonopterygi, I quote the following from the same 

 notes : — 



" Trigonopteryx has a conical, somewhat ascending head; an oblique 

 but incurved face, and ensiform antennas, and if the wings were of the usual 

 form would doubtless be placed in this group (Tryxalini) by all entomolo- 

 gists. The same remark may be made in regard to Ilyalopteryx, Charp. 

 If we place the former in a separate group, or limited family, as has been 

 done by Walker, and in which I have followed him improperly in my Synop- 

 sis, on account of the unusual elytra, how shall we avoid the necessity of 

 forming a separate group for Sphenarium, which has but figments of elytra, 

 unusual in form and neuration, attached to the sides of the thorax ? Trigo- 

 nopteryx is essentially tryxalidian in form and features, and should be 

 included in this group {Tryxalini) ; therefore I feel compelled to correct my 

 former work in this respect." 



Notwithstanding Dr. Brunner Wattenwyl approves of the character 

 chosen, which forms the chief ground for separating - the Phymatidce from 

 Pamphagidee, yet I doubt the propriety of forming two divisions. Placing 

 Mastax in a separate group or division is certainly correct. I know nothing 

 in regard to the species on which he bases his subfamilies Ccdopternidce and 

 Chorcetypidce. 



Before speaking of the genera which the author embraces in his sub- 

 families, I desire to call attention to the order in which he arranges these 

 subfamilies, which has been given on a previous page. The author does 

 not state positively that this is the order in which they should stand ; but it 

 is the order in which they are placed in the body of his work. 



In his Conspectus, they stand in the same order, Proscopidcs standing 

 at the head ; Mastacidce second; and, then, as given, down to Pnevmioridce ; 

 then follows Chorcetypidce ; after that the other two as given. As the order 

 in the body of the work, so far as given, corresponds with that in the Con- 

 spectus, it is probable that this forms a correct outline of his arrangement. 



