234 MR. CURTIS ON HYPOCEPHALUS, A GENUS OF COLEOPTERA. 
merely a head or fulerum at the base of the terminal joint, which is rendered necessary 
from the 8rd joint being bilobed and cushioned beneath; but as a general rule I consider 
the bilobed joint to bethe penultimate, not the antepenultimate joint, throughout the Co- 
leoptera, especially where there is only one bilobed joint* ; and when a joint is either added 
or withdrawn, the change takes place at the base of the tarsust. The Heteromera, I think, 
substantiate this position, for in the four anterior feet, it is the 4th joint which is bilobed ; 
but in the hinder pair it is the 3rd joint which is thus formed, in those species which 
are furnished with bilobed joints. Even in the few exceptions, if they be admitted as. 
such, we find more than one bilobed joint in the foot, or where it is the antepenultimate, 
which it very rarely is, which is altered in structure, it is not bilobed, but cup-shaped or. 
sloped off obliquely ; moreover the false joint in the Longicornes is not cushioned beneath 
like the 3 preceding joints, which shows it is merely the base of the 4th or terminal joint. 
Neither do I insist that Hypocephalus is a Lamellicorn, although I feel a conviction 
that it is not a Longicorn. All my claims for it are based on its being truly a Penta- 
merous beetle, which draws it nearer to the Lwcanide than it can possibly be attracted 
to the Cerambycide, by any less important character. If indeed subsequent discoveries. 
should furnish types to unite the Lucanide and the Prionide, Hypocephalus may possibly 
assist in such a union, and I am not sure that it would not be more in accordance with 
nature, to change the position of the Heteromera in a linear arrangement, and attach 
them to the Trimera, with which they have a considerable resemblance. For the Hete- 
romera whilst partaking the characters of numberless families, cannot be associated with 
any of them. 
In changing the position of the primary divisions, we should not abandon. the philo- 
sophic and admirable systems of Latreille; and if we suffer ourselves to be seduced. by 
analogies to wander from well-established systems, without sufficient reasons, we shall 
have eventually to retrace our steps to free science from the difficulties and confusion 
in which it has been involved. It is only necessary to review the Heteromera, to see 
how dangerous it would be to lose sight of the tarsal system, for in that extraordinary 
Section, which seems so distinct from the rest of the Coleoptera, one finds the types of 
form of almost every family of beetles, from Carabus to Coccinella} ; and I am ashamed 
to confess that when I collected materials for my “Guide to an Arrangement of British 
Insects,” I was so captivated by analogies, which was the prevailing taste of the times, 
* Vide Curtis’s Brit. Ent. Genus Drypta, pl. 454; Demetrias, pl. 119; Melandrya, pl. 155; Lagria, pl. 598. 
- all the Genera of Curculionide and Cerambycide ; the only exceptions are in the Trimera and perhaps Xylo- 
philus. | 
+ Additional joints seem to be added at the base of the Tarsi in the Hydrophilide. Vide Curt. Brit. Ent. Elo- 
phorus, pl. 466; Enicocerus, pl. 291; Ochthebius, pl. 250, and Hydrophilus, pl. 159. 
? Thus the Carabide are represented by Adelium and Akis; Scarites by Scaurus; Harpalus by Pedinus and Pan- 
— Silpha by Asida ;. Peltis ‚by Pteroheleus or Cilibe, Latr.; Trox by Bolitophagus ; Melasis and Agrylus by 
pom: = rege Telephorus by Noting; Cleridæ by Lagria; Brachycerus by Moluris and Sepidium ; 
STR y Pytho; Timarcha by Gnaptor; Casside by Cossyphus ; Coccinella by Nilio ; Erotylus by Campsia, &c. 
It is twenty years since I first. stated that the Coleoptera were composed of 4 distinct Types (it ought to have Bien 
5 lines of form. Vide Brit. Ent. fol. 498), one of which was the Heteromera, which seems to be a croup complete in 
itself, and although reflecting all the other Families, being anatomically distinct from them all. 7. : | 
