Coleopterological Notices, V. 283 



greater age for the Staphylinidse than for some other families of 

 Coleoptera. 



The following detached studies are merely intended as a begin- 

 ning, and in drawing up the generic diagnoses, I have employed to 

 some extent the differential characters suggested by Rey in the 

 "Brevipennes" of France; so that one familiar with that work can 

 refer the genera to their most probable positions in the European 

 scheme. It is to be regretted, on the score of simplicity, that it has 

 been found necessary to propose so many new genera, but I feel 

 quite sure that those here described are really essential. In fact 

 several species now referred to Leptusa, Oxypoda and Rheochara, 

 will ultimately have to form distinct genera. This matter of generic 

 subdivision is, however, becoming an important one from the mere 

 standpoint of numbers, and, in the Aleocharini, if we go beyond 

 Aleochara, Myrmedonia, Bolitochara and others, as determined by 

 the number of tarsal and antennal joints, it is difficult to tell just 

 where to draw the line. One good rule to follow in such cases, is 

 to avoid defining new. genera unless there be at least three or four 

 important structural differences; facies, however, here as elsewhere, 

 frequently goes far as a guide, and is much more important than 

 any single organic structural peculiarity. 



There is one important point concerning the nomenclature of the 

 Aleocharini, which should be continually borne in mind. Homalota 

 Mann, was founded upon a single definitely stated species, the 

 Aleochara plana of Gyllenhall, which was subsequently found by 

 Rey to have but four intermediate tarsal joints. This necessitates 

 the complete abandonment of all our old ideas of Homalota as ex- 

 tended by Erichson, and the true and only Homalota is the genus 

 named Epipeda by Rey. In future, therefore, when we think of 

 the Erichsonian Homalota, we should have in mind Atheta, Colpo- 

 dota, Amischa, Liogluta and a score or so of other genera.' When 



1 This is set forth with sufficient clearness in the recent catalogue of Heyden, 

 Reitter and Weise. I cannot agree with the authors of that work, however, 

 in changing certain family names by reason of the rehabilitation of Geoffroy's 

 genera. For instance, under Mylabris, Geoff., p. 331, I am unable to find a 

 single species named by Geoffroy. Genera are and must be founded upon 

 species, and if no species were described by Geoffroy under Latin names, it 

 follows that that author had not adopted a proper binomial nomenclature 

 when he founded his genera. We are compelled to assume some definite 

 beginning, and that beginning is the date when the names of species were 

 first published under the true binomial form. It is possible that some genera 



