80 (July, 
doubts regarding the group. They have three joints slightly dilated, 
the Ist linear, the 2nd and 8rd sub-oval, and all furnished beneath with 
two rows of fine, ragged squame. This character effectually separates 
the group from both Callistus (which has brush-like soles to its ¢ fore 
tarsi, and has been therefore rightly placed with the Chleniing,) and the 
Bembidiine, which have, as is well known, two unequally dilated joints 
in the g. Ihave examined the ¢ tarsi in Hudalia, Amphithasus, An- 
chonoderus, and Lachnophorus. Schaum believed the group was closely 
allied to the Odacanthine, and that the connecting link was the curious 
Selina Westermanni of 8. Eastern Africa. The discovery of a new genus 
in Australia, Eudalia (Casteln.), confirms, in a decided manner, the 
justness of this conception. Hwdalia, in fact, has the greatest resem- 
blance to certain species of Anchonoderus (sub-fam. Lachnophorine), but, 
at the same time, possesses some of the essential characters of the Oda- 
canthine, especially the dorsal position of the lateral borders of the prono- 
tum, which leave the convex flanks visible from above ; it is, in fact, very 
closely allied to Odacantha. On the other hand, a new genus belonging 
to the present sub-family (Amphithasus, to be described presently) con- 
nects the group very clearly with the Anchomenine ; and another new 
genus, which will be described in a future paper, has many of the charac- 
ters and the general form of Anchomenus, with the trophi and truncated 
elytra of Casnonia (sub-fam. Odacanthine). Other links oceur between 
the Anchomenine and Coptoderine, &c.* In short, it is clear that many 
closely allied sub-families, hitherto included in that indefinable assem- 
blage, Truncatipennes, are but modified Anchomenine, forming so many 
distinct branches from that same stem, and each specialized in its own 
separate direction. Such unequal ramification cannot be represented to 
the mind except by an imaginative effort, and hence probably the ab- 
sence of attempts to establish a genealogical system of classification, 
instead of a unilinear one, condemned in theory by every Naturalist, 
and yet continually being attempted in practice. 
The name of the group, Anchonoderine, was ill-chosen by Lacordaire, 
Lachnophorus being the more typical genus. In fact, it is doubtful 
if Anchonoderus can stand as a generic name. The characters which 
distinguish the sub-family are as follows: 
* One of these singular forms is Sphal/ax peryphoides, from New Zealand, described by mein 
this Magazine (Vol. iv, p. 55), of which I have since seen a specimen in the British Museum, 
ticketed ‘‘Actenonyx bembidioides, White.” The generic characters given by White are meaningless 
and misleading, although there is no doubt the two names refer to one and the same species. This 
curious little insect has the solid horny ligula of the Helluwonine, but no other resemblance what- 
ever to that group. It has the broad triangular mesothoracic epimera (and the facies) of the Bem- 
bidiine, but truncated elytra and thickish oval terminal joints to the palpi. Unless it be considered 
an anomalous form of the Odacanthine, it must form a distinct equivalent group, under the name 
vf Actenonycine.—H. W. B. 
