352 
ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
teridcR ; and the Malacodermi are divided into Cyphonid(B, Dasy- 
tid(By Lampyridce , CantharidcBj Clerii, Corynetidcs, and Xylotrogi. 
The Heteromera in like manner form two stirpes, Globicoxce 
and Conicoxoi, the former of which includes the families Blap- 
tid(E {Blaps, Crypticus, Opatrum, and allies), Boletophagidcej 
Diaperidce, UpidcBj Tenebrionidxj Lagriarimy CistelidcE, MordeU 
loncBj HallomenidcBy SeiTopalpidce, Melandryidce, Boridc^y Sal- 
pingidte, and Pythonidce ; and the latter the PyrochroidcGy Me- 
Ididce, Lyttidce, Stenotrachelid(e, Rhipiphoridcey Calopodid(e, 
(Edemer'idce, AnthicidoSy and Xylophilidca. 
ScHAUM (Archiv. fiir Naturgesch. 1864, pp. 145-153) discusses 
the systematic position of the Strcpsiptcra, with special reference 
to the viewsofG erstacker, w ho places them among tlieNeuroptera, 
and regards them as most nearly allied to the Phryganidie (see 
Handbuch der Zoologie,von Peters, Cams, und Gerstacker,vol.ii. 
pp. 78-80). Schaum considers the arguments adduced by 
Gerstacker in favour of his opinion of the affinities of the Strep- 
siptera, and shows that the characters adduced by that entomo- 
logist in proof of their relationship to the Neuroptera are fal- 
lacious, and that, both in structure and mode of life, the 
Strepsiptera must be referred to the Coleoptera, amongst which 
their nearest allies are the Cantharidan genera Meloe and SitariSy 
and probably Bhipidius. Gerstacker ascribes sac-like branchii- 
form organs to the larvae of Strepsiptera on the authority of 
Newport, and upon this supposed peculiarity founds one of his 
strongest arguments for their Neuropteran affinities ; Newport, 
however, expresses himself very guardedly with regard to these 
organs, which, he says, ^^fiom their resemblance to branchial 
sacs, may perhaps be regarded as imperfect respiratory organs of 
the nature of branchiae.^^ 
Crotch publishes (Entomologist, vol. ii. pp. 111-113) a note 
on the Coleopterous fauna of the Atlantic islands, with reference 
to Wollaston^s statements. After quotihg the numbers of species 
assigned to each island by Wollaston, he states that these are 
probably far too low, especially in the case of Grand Canary, 
Palma, and Hierro. He gives the following table, showing in 
the first column the number of species detected in Madeira, in 
the second the proportionate number which might be expected 
to occur in the Canaries, and in the third the number ascertained 
to exist there : — 
Madeiran. Canarian. 
Proportionate. Ascertained. 
Geodephaga 78 .... 118 .... 123 
Ilydradephaga 9 .... 14 .... 22 
Philhydrida 17 .... 26 .... 25 
Necrophaga 120 .... 182 .... 131 
Cordylocerata 26 .... 39 .... 63 
Priocerata 44 .... 66 .... 95 
