Introduction 3 



families, with the rank of the Pseudomorphida? unknown. The sub- 

 families indicated in the Carabidfe are Lebiina^; Dromiinje, 

 Odaeanthinfe ; Driptina?, Nebriina?; Loricerina?; Carabin<T?, Cychrinfe, 

 Chlseniinse ; Licininse, Bembidiinje, Sphodrinse, Broscinpe, Dyschiriinse, 

 ScaritinsB, ElaphrinsB; Patrobinte, Pterostichina>, Amarinse, 

 Harpalin?e, Glyptina?. The semicolons in this enumeration separate 

 the related groups of subfamilies. The Trechini appear to be sep- 

 arable from Bembidiini, on their larval characters, only by 

 differences of tribal rank. 



As to the sequence of the suborders Dr. Bbving considers that 

 it would "be logical to place the Adephaga third, as the more 

 modern of the three," "but for practical purposes it appears more 

 advisable to rank the suborders in the commonly accepted sequence." 

 The well developed tarsus of adephagous larvse, carrying one or 

 two distinct and movable claws, may be a primitive character, as 

 regarded by us in 1920; and the great similarity in this respect be- 

 tween the larvaa of the Caraboidea and those of certain neuropterous 

 larvse is interesting and possibly significant. However there are 

 several polyphagous larvas, specifically mentioned by Dr. Boving, 

 in which the tarsungulus is "divided by a faint suture into a proximal 

 and distal portion which possibly correspond respectively to tarsus 

 and claw." In Dr. Boving 's definition of the suborders by larval 

 characters, the Adephaga are placed second, and the resemblance 

 of their legs and claws to those of the Archostemata seems to us to 

 indicate this as their natural sequence. 



POLYPHAGA 



The greatest difficulties in the classification have been in this 

 suborder, and in the differences between the opinions expressed by 

 Boving, Forbes, and Tillyard, they are still apparent. The removal 

 of Cupesidas and IMicromalthidse to Archostemata, and of Ehysodida^ 

 to Adephaga, simplifies the classification of the Pohqahaga; and 

 fortunately the isolation of the Scarabfeoidea, of the so-called 

 Phytophaga, and of the Hydrophiloidea and Staphylinoidea is not 

 questioned ; though, as to the latter two, the composition is somewhat 

 altered. Believing that the larval characters afford the safest 

 guidance, not however to the exclusion of other considerations, we 

 review the superfamilies in the sequence adopted by Dr. Boving. 

 Staphylinoidea. The component families, based on larval charac- 

 ters, would be Limnebiidfp, Hydroscaphidse, Leptinida>, Ptiliidie, 

 Anisotomidffi ; Platypsyllidte, Scaphidiida? ; Silphidaj, Staphylinidaj, 

 Pselaphidae, Seydma^nidse. The families also included, though their 

 larvfE are imperfectly known or entirely unknown, are Clambida;, 

 Brathinidie, Sphseritida?, Spha-i'lida", and Micropeplidte. The differ- 

 ences between this and existing classification is the removal from 

 Hydrophilida? of the aberrant genera Limnebius, Ochthebius, and 

 Hydreena; and the suppression of Silphoidea as a superfamily. 



