VI PREFACE. 



valuable as giving accounts of habitats as well as localities); and of the ' 

 various local lists that have from time to time been published, among 

 which Mr. Eold's list of the Coleoptera of Northumberland and Durham, 

 and Mr. W. Garneys' Repton list may particularly be noticed. Besides 

 these I have received valuable help from Mr. W. G. Blatch (to whom I 

 am very much indebted for his exhaustive list of Midland localities), 

 Dr. J. W. Ellis, Mr. J.Chappell, Mr. Butler, Mr. Collett, Mr. Pteston, Mr. 

 T. Wood, Mr. J. J. Walker, Mr. C. G. Hall, Mr. A. C. Horner, Rev. W. 

 C. Hey, Mr. C. 0. Waterhouse, Rev. H. S. Gorham, and others who 

 have kindly helped me, and are still continuing to do so. 



In doiibtful cases I have taken considerable pains to verify references, 

 and I believe that nearly all the localities given are correct ones. 



With regard to the books consulted I feel that it is hardly necessary 

 to give a full list ; I should, however, like to mention Bedel's " Faune 

 des Coleopteres du bassin de la Seine ; " Horn's " Carabidae ; " Horn and 

 Leconte's "Classification of the Coleoptera of North America ; " DaAvson's 

 " Geodephaga Britannica ; " Sharp's " Dytiscidse ; " the " Naturgesichte 

 der Insecten Deutschlands " by Erichson, Schaum and others ; Thom- 

 son's " Skandinaviens Coleoptera;" the works of Fairmaire and Laboul- 

 bene, and Mulsant and Key; Schiodte's "De Metamorphosi Eleuthera- 

 torum," and various monographs and treatises, such as Sharp on the 

 British Homalota?, &c. : in several genera I have found the characters 

 given in Cox's Manual of British Coleoptera very useful. 



The question of nomenclature is at present in such a confused and 

 transitionary position that I have preferred to follow the old and well- 

 known system rather than adopt the changes that have been so largely 

 introduced into the European catalogue : I have therefore altered very 

 few names, but have in most cases appended the newly revived names 

 as synonyms, and referred to them in the index, so that few mistakes 

 can arise. It appears to me that nothing but utter confusion can result^ 

 from the present passion for the law of absolute priority, and in this I 

 am borne out by Dr. Sharp's recent paper, " On some proposed Transfers 

 of Names of Genera " (Transactions Ent. Soc. London, 1886, p. ii. 181), 

 which was written in answer to a pamphlet by ]\I. des Gozis, entitled, 

 " Recherche de I'Espece typique de quelques anciens genres." Under the 

 new system Necroijil torus hecomes Silj^ha, and Silpha NecropTiorus ; Pro- 

 crustes becomes Carahus, Carahus is changed to Tachypus, and Tacliypus 

 requiring a new name is called Asaphidion ; even Melolontha is found 

 to relate to Clijthra, and our common cockchafer becomes Ludihrius 

 vulgaris ; the genus Homalota, moreover, is found to comprise but one 

 single, species. These instances will show the utter confusion that 

 would arise, and I certainly do not feel justified in adopting these radical 

 changes, the utility of which is so very doubtful, and which in many 

 cases are evidently erroneous, as we often have no means of judging 

 from the very meagre descriptions of the old authors what the insect was 

 that they really described and named. 



In considering the arrangement of the work, it appeared to me the 



