74 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ADEPHAGA. . 
remarks upon his own classification that 44 in considering the different primary 
divisions of this very natural family, as possessing a value inferior to that of 
distinct families, and as constituting collectively one family of equal rank with 
Cicindelidce , I am but treading in the steps of Linnaeus, Latreille, Kirby, and 
Leach, as well as in those, I cannot but think, of Nature herself, notwithstanding 
the numerical majority of the Carabideous over the Cicindelideous insects. 5 ’* I 
am disposed to take a different view of the case; and, 44 treading in the steps” of 
MacLeay, Dejean, Stephens, &c. (and I trust also in 44 those of Nature her¬ 
self”), to consider Harpalidce , Brachinidce , &c„, as families of equal rank with 
Cicindelidce. Of the characters of Cicindelidce , Mr. Westwood remarks that that 
afforded by the slight development of the labium is the most valuable; and the 
maxillary articulated terminal hook, which has been chiefly relied upon, is not 
only absent in two genera of this family, but has been discovered in Trygonodac - 
tyla, a Carabideous genus. And although the general form of Cicindelidce is 
well marked, and their habits are peculiar, yet neither appears sufficient to warrant 
us to consider them entitled to the rank Mr. Westwood contends for. 
But whilst agreeing with Mr. MacLeay respecting Cicindelidce , I must beg to 
enter my protest against another part of his arrangement of this tribe. I refer 
to the suppression of Bembidiidcs , which, being restricted by the median laws of 
the Quinary system to five divisions, he has found himself obliged to associate 
with Harpalidce. Mr. Westwood justly remarks that if the peculiar structure 
of the palpi 44 were indeed the only distinctive mark of the group, this step might 
still be questioned, as no other Carahidce possess such a structure; but the group 
is also characterised by the minute size, great agility and sub-aquatic habits of 
the insects of which it is composed; moreover, in point of number of species, it is 
not an inferior group.”f Could anything stronger be said of Cicindelidce , for which 
Mr. Westwood claims a superior rank? 
Mr. Stephens also differs from Mr. MacLeay ; and in so doing (as he believes 
in the circular disposition of groups) takes the opportunity to observe that Nature 
44 does not always dispose her subjects in every department into fives, but that 
different numbers may possibly obtain in different groups; and why not more 
than five in the overwhelming family [tribe] of Geodephaga , when we find the 
succeeding one of Hydradephaga so greatly deficient V’$ I should be very glad 
to see Mr. Stephens’s suggestion generally admitted. It would perhaps have 
the beneficial effect of curtailing those forcings of Nature which are now so 
prevalent, and which are too often praised as evidences of scientific acumen ! 
To pass on to Mr. Kirby’s last arrangement of Adephaga , which is as follows j 
* W estwood, Inlrod . to Classify p. 74. 4 Ibid ., 72. 
X Stephens, Mandib ., ii., p. 1. 
