X CLASSIFICATION, NOMENCLATUKE, ETC. 



accord with the European list, even though this may, in many- 

 cases, jar upon our susceptibilities : the dates of the last two European 

 Catalogues are 1891 and 190G respectively, both of them having been 

 compiled by L. v. Heyden, E. Reitter, and J. Weise, " cum aliis sociis 

 coleopterologicis " ; the last of these is in every way a great improve- 

 ment on its predecessor and ought to be in the hands of all our British 

 Coleopterists ; it is not, of course, without its defects, and in certain 

 cases species are sunk as synonymous with others to which they have 

 no relation, but it is of course impossible for the authors of a large 

 catalogue to examine every species themselves ; on the whole, however, 

 it appears to be very accurate, and it corrects some of the confusing 

 alterations of names which are found in the catalogue of 1891. In the 

 latter, for instance, Bruchidaa is used for Ptinidae and Bruchus for 

 Ptinus, while Bruchidre becomes Mylabridje and Bruchus Mylabris ; 

 in the 190G catalogue the names Ptinidse and Ptinus are again rein- 

 stated as before, but Lariidfe and Laria are substituted for Bruchidje 

 and Bruchus, which disappear altogether. An alteration that must be 

 followed is the substitution of Cantharis for Telephorus, as the terms 

 " Cantharoidea," " Cantharidiformia," and "Cantharid" are often used 

 in modern systems of classification ; the term Lampyridai is, however, 

 better than Cantharidse for the large family which includes the Lycinje, 

 Lampyrinfe, Telephorinfe, Drilinse, and Malachiinae. 



There are some alterations that we might, perhaps, hardly agree to, 

 such as the reversal of the order Staphylinidse, which begins with the 

 Piestinfe {Prognatha, &c.) and ends with the Aleocharinse, for which 

 there seems no special reason ; only four species are included under 

 Homalota, Mann., the majority being placed under Atheta, Thoms. 



Taken as a whole the catalogue is more synthetic than analytic and 

 is rather inclined to diminish than increase the number of genera. The 

 nomenclature of the species, with a few exceptions, should be followed. 



With regard to the question of aberrations and varieties, we have, 

 in order to secure uniformity with the rest of this work, only made use 

 of the latter term ; it is open to any future writer to alter this, but it 

 is very doubtful where the one begins and the other ends ; roughly- 

 speaking, a colour difi'erence (in the general insect, legs, or antennae) 

 forms an aberration, while a slight structural difierence forms a variety ; 

 when, however, we come to the question of pubescence or sculpture, 

 there is a great deal of confusion ; in one sense, sculpture is a structural 

 character, as also is pubescence, which is often closely connected with 

 sculpture; and, as a matter of fact, we find that differences in these 

 points are in some cases held to be specific, in others varietal, and in 

 others merely aberrational. 



Of course this is all most interesting as regards the phylogeny of 

 species, which "in the making" begin as aberrations, pass on into 

 varieties, and then develop into accepted species ; it is therefore prac- 

 tically impossible to draw the line, and if it is impossible, as it often is, 

 to draw the line between species and varieties, it is certainly- still more 

 ditticult to decide what is an aberration, a variety, or a sub-species. 



