Taxonomic and Morphological Considerations 



Not many investigators have devoted their time wholly or in large part 

 to the Pselaphidae. However, this family has had the advantage of treatment 

 by a master's touch in the virtually unique work of Achille Raffray. His first 

 general survey of the pselaphids was his world catalogue (1903-1904). This 

 was followed by his exhaustive treatment of the genera of the world (1908) 

 and finally by a complete catalogue of the species (1911). The majority of 

 the now known species of Pselaphidae were described by Raffray in a long 

 series of papers; the outlines of present classification of the family, its com- 

 parative anatomy and most of our information on the zoogeography of the 

 group bear the imprint of his discerning mind. 



This is not to say that others have not contributed brilliantly to a knowl- 

 edge of the family. Following the beginnings by Paykull (1789) and the recog- 

 nition of the pselaphids as a family by Herbst (1792) which resulted in the 

 description of three species, Tychus niger (Paykull), Pselaphus heisei Herbst, 

 and Pselaphus dresdensis Herbst, information slowly accumulated until 1816, 

 when Reichenbach monographed the family for the first time. This was fol- 

 lowed by a treatment of the group by Denny (1825) and by Aube (1833-34). 

 It was not until Reitter's new classification in 1881 that the number of sternit^s 

 was employed in the taxonomy of Pselaphidae, and the groups within the family 

 partially delimited. In 1890 Raflfray proposed the modem system based upon 

 the form and insertion of the mesothoracic coxae, trochanters, and femora, 

 Raffray was followed by Ganglbauer (1895) in his penetrating work, Kdfer 

 von Mittelewopa, and Raffray extended the system (1908) to embrace the 

 world fauna. 



The Pselaphidae of North America, particularly those to be found within 

 the political boundaries of the United States, received monographic treatment 

 by John L. LeConte (1850) and little more was accomplished until the mono- 

 graph by Brendel and Wickham (1888-1890). Both of these studies were well 

 done for their particular era and served to set the stage for the taxonomic 

 genius of Thomas L. Casey. 



Casey (1884, 1886, 1887, 1893, 1897, 1908) described many new North 

 American species and in his full descriptions added much to our general in- 

 formation of the anatomy of the family and its taxonomic possibilities. It is a 

 pity that Casey could not have monographed the North American species at a 

 time when he could have assayed and properly integrated the increase in 

 information since Brendel and Wickham's paper. The failure to do this left 

 our knowledge of Pselaphidae in this country highly unorganized. This was 

 demonstrated by the use of the early Brendel and Wickham treatise as the 

 basis for Pselaphidae in Blatchley's classic Coleoptera of Indiana (1910), 



(12) 



