121 



ter in the most exaggerated form ; on the other hand there are 

 species in which the tibial character is very faintly defined, — - 

 some in which it is difficult to determine whether their tibit« 

 place them in Bemhidium or Tachys. Mr. feloane has defined 

 Tachys on the tibial character alone and has admitted into the 

 genus species in which the elytral striole is decidedly wanting. 

 It is to be noted that he has adopted this definition with great 

 diffidence, and has distinctly stated that it does not satisfy his 

 ideas of desirable generic grouping in the Suhulipalpi, being 

 adopted provisionally. T think that he is quite right in exer- 

 cising great care to avoid the formation of genera which the 

 future discovery of additional species is likely to invalidate, and 

 that where a describer deems a new species before him likely to 

 be subsequently proved (by the finding of intermediate forms) to 

 be merely an aberrant race of some known genus it is better to 

 refer it to that genus — at the same time specifying clearly the 

 characters which render its position doubtful. I am not there- 

 fore prepared to challenge Mr. Sloane's action in this matter or 

 his opinion that a more satisfactory grouping of Australian 

 Bemhidiides is attained by separating the species having the 

 tibipe characteristic of Tachys from those having them of the 

 typical Bemhidium form irrespective of their elytral sculpture, 

 than by making the elytral sculpture of importance as a generic 

 character. In fact Mr. Sloane has concentrated attention on the 

 CarabidcB so much more than I have done, and I so generally 

 agree with his conclusions, that I am much disposed to yield to 

 his authority. It seems, however, desirable that I should make 

 these remarks because my own contributions to the descriptions 

 of Australian Bemhidiides have followed a different line and I 

 have given as much prominence to elytral as to tibial sculpture 

 in generic apportionment, not however relying absolutely upon 

 either and in the case of species where those characters were not 

 both of them of either the Tachys or the Bemhidium type 

 adding the consideration of facies so that one of m}^ species (as 

 noted below) has not been placed by me as Mr. Sloane would now 

 place it. 



T. {Bemhidium) victoriensis, Blackb. This species was placed 

 by me in Bemhidium with the remark that although having the 

 tibi?e of a Tachys it has elytral sculpture inconsistent with a 

 place in that genus. Its facies being decidedly more accordant 

 with Bemhidium than with a typical Tachys I apportioned it to 

 the former genus. On Mr. Sloane's conception of Tachys, how- 

 ever, it must stand in that genus rather than in Bemhidium. 

 In Mr. Sloane's tabulation of Australian species of Tachys its 

 place is with T. hrunnipennis, Macl., and ectromioides, Sloane, 

 from both of which it differs by its elytra being fully and very 

 deeply striate and having their interstices strongly convex. 



