36 Introduction 



haplogastral resemblance of Staphylinidae and Lamellicornia urged by 

 Kolbe, that authors are not even agreed upon the origin of the order 

 Coleoptera. While the study of phylogeny is of absorbing interest, 

 carrying us back far beyond historical or even glacial times, for Lyell ' 

 speaks, perhaps in error, of beetles in the Carboniferous Epoch, it may 

 never, from the scarcity of early fossil insects, have enough facts to prove 

 or disprove some of the extreme views that have been advanced. Dis- 

 regarding them the phylogenetic consideration of the modifications of 

 beetle structure, as given by Lameere, Ganglbauer and Kolbe and 

 analyzed by Gahan, seems to warrant the few changes in the Leconte 

 classification that I have adopted. 



My final conclusion is, that bearing in mind the speculative char- 

 acter of the phylogeny of the Coleoptera, and the failure of any theory 

 thus far advanced to reconcile all the facts of larval, adult and fossil 

 studies, it would be premature to base any radical changes in Leconte's 

 classification thereon. The division of the order by recognition of the 

 Adephaga as a sub-order seems to have become established since Dr. 

 Leconte's time; but the inclusion in Adephaga of Rhysodidse and Cupe- 

 sidse on the basis of venation and propleural sutures is forbidden by 

 every other character we have considered. The division of the remainder 

 of the Coleoptera into more series than Leconte contemplated seems also 

 to be justified; and the arrangement of these series in such sequence as 

 their phylogenetic rank suggests seems, though still somewhat open to 

 argument, better than one based on the assumed importance of tarsi, 

 antennse or any other separate structure, or even partial combination 

 of stnictures. Acting upon these ideas I have altered the place assigned 

 by Dr. Leconte to the heteromerous series and reversed the relative 

 position of his serricorn and clavicorn families, because I believe the 

 latter are plainly the more derivative. Some minor changes, as in 

 family names and division of families, have been made to harmonize 

 our list with recent European research, but these do not affect the main 

 principles of the classification. The net result is given below in a con- 

 spectus of families. 



In closing these remarks, intended to explain as well as I can the 

 reasons for making some changes that seemed unavoidable, I wish to 

 express my appreciation of the kindness of some friends, especially 

 Wm. T. Davis and Andrew J. Mutchler, who have frequently discussed 

 the matters involved, and E. A. Schwarz and Herbert S. Barber, whose 

 criticism of my first results, and communication of unpublished larval 



> Elements of Geology, 1S68, p. 494. 



I 



