220 



HARRIS TO LE.CONTE. 



CAMBRIDGE, Nov. 22, 1852. 



In regard to Carabus externus Say,= Calosoma longipenne 

 Dej., you remark " propter corpus apterum" etc. Dejean says, 

 " ily a des ailes sous Us elytres" The latter is certainly true 

 of a pair in my collection, both of which have wings. On 

 other grounds I believe you are right in restoring the insect to 

 the genus Carabus , and I expressed the same view in a letter 

 written to one of my correspondents fourteen years ago. From 

 an examination made at that time of numerous species of Ca- 

 rabus and Calosoma, I came to the conclusion that none of the 

 characters by which these genera have been distinguished are 

 constant; and that either the two must be combined, or else 

 many new genera, more strictly and artificially defined, must be 

 instituted. I came to the same conclusion concerning Cychrus, 

 Scaphinotus and Sphcerod&rus, as you may gather from my 

 paper published in the Boston Journal of Natural History. 



Calosoma scrutator and Carabus sylvosus are indeed very 

 distinct from each other in what have been considered gen- 

 eric characters ; but there are numerous species that may be 

 placed between them, showing a regular gradation of charac- 

 ters from one to the other. 



Are you aware that Diccelus purpuratus of Say is nothing but 

 an old and faded specimen of his D. violaceus ? Such is the 

 fact. He himself seems to have had some misgivings about the 

 species ; for he did not describe and figure it with D. violaceus 

 in his American Entomology. 



I follow Latreille in arranging my CaraUdce thus : 1. Trim- 

 catipenncn ; 2. Bipartiti ; 3. Quadrimani ; 4. Simplicimani .(Fe- 

 ronice Dej.) ; 5. PateUimam; 6. G-randipalpi or Simplicipedes ; 

 and 7. Subulipalpi; believing this to be a more natural order 

 of the groups than any since proposed. It appears to me, 

 moreover, that Platynus (including Agonum and Anchomenm) 

 should go with the Patellimani rather than with the Simplici- 



