103 



various other genera, glabra might quite as well have been 

 referred to Cleptor, and some others to Geloptera or 

 Colaspoides. I have, in fact, generically separated several 

 species of Cleptor and Edusa, that at first glance would appear 

 to belong to but one genus. (2) 



With few exceptions the Australian genera are either now, 

 or once were, monotypic, and very few are sharply defined. 

 To the original species of many genera additions frequently 

 appear to have been made at random, characters regarded by 

 some authors as important beng regarded by others as unim- 

 portant. There is, therefore, great difficulty in apportioning 

 many species to their correct genera, and it is very desirable 

 in most cases to make sure of the original species, if this can 

 possibly be done. Unfortunately for Australian workers, the 

 typical species is often ex- Australian. 



The main features relied upon for dividing the subfamily 

 into genera, and groups of genera, are the front margin of 

 the prosternal episternum (highly unsatisfactory), the presence 

 or otherwise of a notch near the outer apex of each of the 

 four hind tibiae (a very useful feature, although the notches 

 are sometimes very feeble), the presence or otherwise of 

 rugosities on the elytra caused by the punctures becoming 

 transversely confluent (a feature that is sometimes variable 

 within the limits of a species, and is almost always variable 

 in a large genus), the upper-surface glabrous or clothed, the 

 claws, ("*) the sides of the prothorax,'^) and the femoral 

 dentition. <6) 



So much importance has been attached to the front 

 margin of the prosternal episternum by various authors that 

 it is necessary to give special consideration to same. A sketch 

 of the prosternum of JRhyparida dimidiata has, therefore, been 

 made, and the letters on same will serve as an index to the 

 names of the parts as regarded by Leconte and followed by 



(3) See note at Cleptor higener. 



(4) Simple appendiculate or bifid. I doubt if they are ever truly 

 simple; even in Spilopyra each claw (pi. vii., fig. 101) has a slight 

 basal swelling. The change from an appendiculate claw to a bifid 

 one is frequently so gradual that it is difficult to define a dividing 

 line, so that (as previouslj^ pointed out by Mr. Blackburn) the 

 decision as to the nature of a claw must often be an arbitrary one. 



(5) Evenly rounded in middle, dentate or subdentate. Also 

 highly unsatisfactory. 



(6) The presence or otherwise of teeth on the femora (usually 

 on the front pair only) would appear at first to be very satisfactory 

 characters, especially as the teeth, when present, are often of 

 large size ; but in many species it is difficult to decide as to whether 

 the femora are only angnlate or truly dentate, and the teeth are 

 sometimes so small that they could be easily overlooked. 



