BEMBIDIIN^E 3 



Eighth stria entire but fine, somewhat irregular; each elytron with seven 

 fine subpunctulate discal striae; mentum with two rather large deep 

 circular foraminiform foveae; body depressed, the integument thin, 

 the antennae thick and rather short Paratachys n. gen. 



Eighth stria broadly interrupted medially; discal stria obsolete, except 

 toward the suture 7 



7 Body oval, convex; mentum without foraminiform excavations. 



Tachyura Mots. 



Body depressed, oblong-oval in form 8 



8 Mentum with two foraminiform cavities, which however are much 

 smaller than in Pericompsus Tachys Steph. 



Mentum without foraminiform cavities 9 



9 Side margins of the pronotum normal, the edge finely reflexed. 



Tachyta Kirby 



Side margins deeply and evenly excavated from base to apex, forming 

 a sharply defined gutter at each side Tachymenis Mots. 



Blemus cenescens Lee., is omitted from the above table of genera 

 and from further consideration at the present time; it belongs to 

 the genus Micratopus, denned by the writer (Memoirs Col., V, 

 1914, p. 42) for a small species fusciceps from Vicksburg, Miss., 

 apparently differing from anescens in its longer antennse, these 

 being from two-thirds to three-fourths as long as the body, but in 

 anescens described as half by LeConte, and scarcely half by Hay- 

 ward, as long as the body. sEnescens was assigned to Lymnastis 

 by Motschulsky, but the diffused punctures of the entire upper 

 surface in Lymnastis indica, the type of the genus, would seem to 

 indicate that Micratopus is not the same as Lymnastis, although 

 there is possibly a close generic affinity. The third palpal joint of 

 Lymnastis is said to be "elargi"; it is only normally inflated in 

 Micratopus. With Tachys, to which tznescens is referred by Hay- 

 ward, there is no real relationship whatever. We have in fact in 

 Micratopus a remarkable type of the Carabidae, for the single supra- 

 orbital seta would constitute of it an exception in the entire sub- 

 order Harpalinee Bisetosae if, because of palpal structure, we assign 

 it to the Bembidiinae, and the subulate palpi would cause it to be 

 a singular exception if placed among the Harpalinae Unisetosae. It 

 was this extraordinary condition of relationship that prompted the 

 writer to propose a distinct subfamily group for Micratopus. How- 

 . ever, on further consideration I am now disposed to believe that, 

 in this case, the loss of one of the supra-orbital setae probably due 

 to the extreme retraction of the head is of less value taxonomi- 



