INTRODUCTION. 33 



the most convenient plan ; but when relationships are so close 

 and involved that no break at all can be made, it seems 

 preferable to recognize the fact that the generic limits formerly 

 apparent have ceased to be so and to abandon the use of 

 names no longer serviceable. Many authors adopt the 

 opposite method and attempt to solve the difficulty by multi- 

 plication of genera, depending upon ever finer differences ; 

 but still intermediate forms will manifest themselves and when, 

 as sometimes happens, each species has a genus to itself (or 

 a subgenus) the process becomes a reductio ad absurdum. 



For the Lucanid^ no such revision as that undertaken by 

 Gravely for the Passalid^ has been attempted, and to make 

 a practical classification of the Indian forms I have found it 

 necessar}^ to reduce the number of genera still more drastically 

 than has been done for the other family. The astonishing 

 polymorphism prevailing in the group introduces difficulties 

 completely absent in the other case. Concerning the Lucanid.^, 

 Lacordaire remarked in his ' Genera des Coleopteres,' "as to 

 the species, many have been founded on imperfectly developed 

 males or on isolated females of which the males are unknown, 

 to say nothing of different names given to the same species 

 in the ordinary condition. Thus the confusion which exists 

 in the literature is perhajjs unequalled in the rest of the 

 Coleoptera. Each publication which appears on these insects 

 seems to increase instead of diminishing it." The confusion 

 became much greater after this was AVTitten. At that date 

 (1856) the very competent entomologist, Westwood, had pro- 

 duced (in the " Catalogue of Lucanoid Coleoptera ') an analytical 

 table which included the majority of the known species. 

 Evidently recognizing the pecuhar difficulties, Westwood 

 admitted very few genera, including most of the species in the 

 genus Lucanus. For the various sections of the genus, 

 however, he accepted as subgeneric, various names which 

 had been devised by Hope. The invariable fate of subgeneric 

 names, which, amongst other reasons, renders them undesirable, 

 befell these. Later authors, ignoring the fact that they were 

 not intended as generic names, because based on characters 

 of one sex only, used them as generic names and, where th'ey 

 would not fit, formed new genera similarly based on the 

 characters of one sex. Henceforth, female specimens, the 

 males of which were unknown, could not be referred to any 

 genus at all or, if it should be considered desirable to name 

 them, a genus had to be selected at random. Worse still, 

 since the features peculiar to male Lucaniu.^ are almost 

 without exception of extreme variability and liable in specimens 

 of small size practically to disappear, not only females but 

 small males were destitute of distinctive generic characters. 

 It is unnecessary to dwell upon the inconvenience of a system 



