68 



(Phileurides) to which this decidedly obscure character would 

 refer Semanopterus is treated as containing genera both with 

 ciliate and non-ciliate posterior tibiae, it does not appear to 

 me a natural arrangement in respect of the Australian 

 Dynastides to regard Semanopterus (including Asemantus) 

 and Gryptodus as representing an aggregate of equal rank 

 with one containing all the other genera, as would have to 

 be done if Lacordaire's classification were strictly adhered to, 

 especially since there is no other conspicuous character that 

 I have been able to discover that would suggest Semanopterus 

 being widely distinct from several other genera of those 

 having the posterior tibiae ciliate. As regards Cryptodus 

 there is so little resemblance between its mouth organs and 

 those of Semanopterus (beyond the bare fact that the labial 

 palpi are not entirely exposed in either), and the two are 

 so ultra-dissimilar in facies and in almost all characters that 

 I have no doubt they ought to be placed in distinct primary 

 divisions of the Tribe. My want of knowledge of Phileurides 

 occurring in other countries than Australia disqualifies me 

 for the task of criticising the contents of that aggregate in 

 general, but I find it hard to believe that genera with pos- 

 terior tibiae truncate and ciliate ought to be associated with 

 genera having those tibiae digitated and non-ciliate, and still 

 harder to believe that species so differing from each other 

 ought to be placed in the same genus, as Lacordaire places 

 species which he attributes to the genus Phileurus. 



After distinguishing the two subtribes referred to above 

 from the rest of the Dynastides, Lacordaire divides the 

 remainder into subtribes founded on the structure of the 

 front tibiae of the male. It may well be, and probably is, 

 the case that this is in reality of great importance in a natural 

 classification, but (as Mr. Arrow has pointed out — Tr. Ent. 

 Soc, Lond., 1908) characters appertaining to one sex only 

 are objectionable — in the sense of "inconvenient," no doubt, 

 he means. The reason of that, I take it, is simply that it 

 prevents generic apportionment of species of which only one 

 sex is known ; but there seems to be no reason for saying that 

 it does not, in the scheme of Nature, represent a divergence 

 as fundamental as that connected (say) with the form of the 

 "men turn. My limited knowledge (and I admit it is limited) 

 of Dynastides outside Australian forms seems to point to the 

 probability that the presence of sexual characters in the 

 front tibiae is much more than a trivial character ; but I agree 

 that, so long as there are numerous species of which one sex 

 only is known, the character is unworkable, and therefore 

 that M. Lacordaire's aggregates founded on it should be 

 rejected for the present. In one of these aggregates M. 



