254 



REVISION OF THE TENEBUIONIDiE OF AMERICA, 



its allies among the Tenebrionidee. Mr. Pascoc (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. IV, 

 Vol. Ill, p. 153,) renews the opinion, and while noting the fact that the anterior coxal 

 cavities are open behind in Pytho, Boros, et al., appears to lay greater stress on the promi- 

 * nence of the coxae themselves. I fear the more prominent, or rather more visible, char- 

 acter has engaged the attention of Mr. Pascoc, at the expense of the more important ones. 

 In the above cited paper of Mr. Pascoc, as well as in others by Mr. Pates, on the Tenc- 

 brionide Fauna of Australia, etc., it is to be regretted that too little attention has been 

 paid to some of our own genera, with which it is probable some of theirs are closely allied 

 and perhaps identical. Many have been founded on characters of entirely too trifling 

 moment, and genera have been multiplied to an extent only exceeded by late publications 

 on the genera of Cerambycida? and Curculionidoe. From their standpoint Eleodes in our 

 fauna alone may be divided into a dozen, while each Asida might with equal propriety be 

 called by a surname of its own. 



Although the coxal cavities are never confluent, they arc sometimes so narrowly sep- 

 arated by the presternum as to allow the cox;e to become contiguous, as in Dacoderus 

 and a new genus.* 



The classification adopted in the body of this paper is substantially that of Dr. Le- 

 conte, with such alterations as the further study of the family seems to indicate, and while 

 the systems adopted by Lccontc and Lacordaire arc so widely and fundamentally differ- 

 ent, the arrangement of the genera is very strikingly similar. In this arrangement one 

 fact may be noticed more especially; the mentum in the leading genera of each sub-family 

 attains a maximum, gradually diminishing in size as the more inferior types are reached, 

 and while this is the case in each sub-family, tin- mentum in its greatest development in 

 the three sub-families is gradually smaller. To illustrate; in the first sub-family the men- 

 tum is very large in the Gnathosiini, and minimum in Dacoderini; second sub-family, 

 maximum in Asidini, minimum in Coniontini ; third sub-family, maximum in Blaptini 

 (and Coelocncmis), minimum in Apocryphini and Ilelopini; and while we have a maxi- 

 mum and minimum in each sub-family, so the Tcntyriidac have the mentum of maximum 

 development, while the Tencbrionidaj of minimum. In a study of the family, I have 

 often been struck with the remarkable parallelism which appears to exist between indi- 

 vidual genera of many widely separated tribes. As I have been unable to consult scarcely 

 a fifth part of the genera described, I cannot venture further than the mere hint above 



Before entering on the details of the paper, I cannot omit mention ot the many kind 

 friends who have assisted me in the loan of specimens, &c; firstly, Dr. Lecontc, for the 

 very free use of his cabinet and library; secondly, of Dr. Lewis, for many specimens, the 



* This genus is in the cabinet of my friend, Mr. Ulke, and in Washington, D. C, and, as Mr. U. is now abroad, 

 I have not been permitted to study many of the species in his cabinet. 



