ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ADEPHAGA. 
77 
Interm, forms.— Aristus, Acinopus , Labrus , Broscus , &c. (ex. sp. B. ceplia- 
lotes , comm. Brit.). 
Fam. 4, Harpalidce , MacL. ( Thoracici , Lath., Harpalides , Westw.). 
Interm, forms.— Licinus , Panagceus , &c. (ex. sp. L. depressus, Brit.). 
Fam. 5, Carabidce, MacLeay ( Abdominales, Latr., Carabides , Westw.). 
Interm, forms.— Nebria , Elaphrus , &c.* (ex. sp. BL uliginosns , not uncomm. 
Brit.). 
Fam. 6, Bembidiidce, MacLeay ( Subulipalpi , Latr., Bembidiides , Westw.) 
From this family, in which the terminal joint of the maxillary palpi is minute 
and conical (fig. 9.), we pass on to Haliplince , R. ( Haliplides , Westw.), a sub¬ 
family in which the same peculiarity is observed (fig. 10.), and which is arranged 
at the commencement of the 
Tribe JDyticacea , Rylands ( Hydradephaga , MacL., Hydro can th a ri, Latr.).— 
Eyes slightly prominent. Mandibles almost covered by the labrum. 
Maxillee with the inner lobe arched from its base. Thorax broader than 
long. Legs formed for swimming, the two posterior pairs compressed, and 
ciliated; the hind pair remote from the others; tarsal claws often un¬ 
equal. Body always ovate, generally depressed. 
Family 1, Byticidce , Leach.—“ Anterior legs short; antennoe long.” 
-2, “ Gyrinidcc , Leach.—A nterior legs long; antennse short.”—W est- 
wood. 
Notwithstanding the evident approximation of Bembidiidce (both in their 
sub-aquatic habits, and the form of the palpi) to Haliplus , a great saltus (whether 
Natures or not has to be proved) between the two tribes is still found. The 
form necessary for the completion of the connexion must differ considerably from 
any we yet possess. 
In conclusion, I must acknowledge my total inability to discover in either 
tribe the circular disposition of its contents: to doubt the existence of the 
44 circles,” would be temerity after the rules laid down, and assertions made, by 
certain of the High Priests of the Temple of Nature. 
Bewsey House , Warrington , 
June 8, 1838. 
* Some entomologists contend that these genera {Elaphrus, &c.) are closely allied to Cicindelidce 9 
and ought not therefore to be arranged as above. It cannot be denied that in general appearance 
they resemble Cicindelce , but certainly in all important characters they are more closely allied to 
Carabidce , from which in fact they only differ by the brevity of their antennaD. 
