182 



genus. The Baron regards as mere sections groups of species 

 ■wbicli have the male anterior and intermediate tarsi widely 

 dilated (the basal four joints being similarly clothed beneath), 

 and groups in which the same are very slightly dilated (with 

 the first joint clothed differently from the rest). The memoir 

 has enabled me to identify with certainty some of the species 

 in the former section concerning which I was not previously 

 sufficiently assured to found any conclusion on their characters, 

 and when I place side by side Harpalics Germari, Cast., and 

 HarpaJus Deyrollei, Cast., their differences appear far too great 

 to allow of their bearing a common generic name, while the 

 close affinity between the latter and Hyplimyax is beyond 

 doubt. The Baron does not appear to have noticed the striking 

 difference between the hind tarsi of Diaplwromerus (first 

 group) and those of HypKarpax, and seems to have regarded 

 the tooth on the hind femora of the latter as a constant cha- 

 racter, the absence of which should ipso facto exclude from the 

 genus. I am quite convinced that Harpaliis inornatus, Germ., 

 is a typical Hypliarpax, although the Baron places it as a 

 synonym of Harpalus australis, Dej. (without giving any reason), 

 under the generic name Diaplwromerus. As I have said above, 

 I think it possible that the two may be identical, but in that 

 case H. australis is a Hypliarpax. My remarks on Anisodactylus 

 are quite in agreement with those of the Baron. Touching 

 Gnatliaplianus, he appears to have deliberately considered the 

 Australian species called by that name generically inseparable 

 from the Javanese individual for which the name was provided,, 

 so that the doubt I have expressed above on the point is pro- 

 bably unfounded. In that case Mr. Bates' genus JSIirosarus 

 will not stand, I think, as it appears to have been founded for 

 a species that de Chaudoir would have considered to be a 

 Gnatliapliamis . 



HTPHAEPAX. 



This genus is, I think (among the Anisodactylides, hsiYmg the 

 anterior and intermediate tarsi in the male strongly dilated 

 with the basal joint not very much smaller than the second) 

 best distinguished by the shortness of the tarsi, especially the 

 hindmost. These — i.e., the hind tarsi — are very decidedly shorter 

 than their tibiae, and have their basal joint in some species 

 scarcely, in others not at all, longer than the second. The 

 characters in the hind femora and tibiae of the males are very 

 variable. In S. lateralis, W. S. Macleay (the type of the genus), 

 the femur is said to be unidentate beneath, and the tibia to be 

 arched and crenulate within. In Mr. Bates' S. puncticauda 

 the femur is said to be " incrassate but not dentate," and the 

 tibia to be flexuous but not arched. I have before me a number 

 of species (several of whicli are probably identical with some 



