AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 417 



which it may be distinguished from its congeners. Cicindela, 

 according to Linnaeus, included not only all the insects, which 

 would at this day be referred to it, but many others, which, how- 

 ever closely allied by habit, are widely distinct in the formation 

 of their oral organs. These were separated by the celebrated 

 systematists, Fabricius and Latreille, into several new genera, to 

 which well defined essential characters have been affixed. These 

 separations have been made upon the best possible grounds ; the 

 convenience of the student, and the approximation to natural 

 method. So circumscribed, Cicindehi presents a natural group, 

 in which each individual so perfectly corresponds with the others, 

 as well in its internal organization and parts of the mouth, as in 

 habit, or general form of the body, that the entomologist finds 

 no difficulty in distinguishing it from insects of neighboring 

 genera, and referring it to its relative situation. 



The genera to which allusion is here made, as having affinity 

 with the one under consideration, are principally Colliuris, Ther- 

 afes, McgacepJiala, Manticora, Elaplirus, and Notiopluhis. In 

 constructing the essential character, I have endeavored to ascer- 

 tain such traits as will at once, invariably, distinguish Cicindela 

 from all other known genera of the Pentamerous Coleoptera, and 

 prevent the occurrence of error in the reference of species to it. 

 In external form, Cicindela [404] borders very closely upon the 

 genera here enumerated, and in addition to evidence of frequent re- 

 currence, furnishes us with ample proof, that if habit was the only 

 character consulted in the formation of a system, animals of very 

 different modes of life, and totally distinct in nature, would be 

 blended together by artificial violence. Of the genera above 

 mentioned, the two last are very distinct from Cicindela, by the 

 inarticulated maxillary nail, and by a deep sinus on the inner 

 edge of the anterior tibia, characters which at once approach 

 them to the Carahi, notwithstanding the almost perfect similarity 

 which Elaphrus bears to Cicindela in miniature, by the form and 

 proportions of its body. The mentum or chin also of the former 

 is not divided as it is in the latter genus, and it is worthy of 

 particular remark, that in Notiophilus there exists the spine and 

 recipient cavity of Elater. CoUiicris is composed of two species, 

 natives of the East Indie.«, and one of South America, distin- 



1818.] 27 



