INSECTS-COLEOPTERA. 
33 
very interesting letter on Amphizoa, in which rny attention was called to this omission, and to 
the misstatement that the galea of the maxillae is Inarticulate ; a more careful view shows that 
it is in reality undivided, and that I was deceived by a cross reflection of light. 
With regard to the affinities towards the Tenebrionidae, upon which Dr. Schaum lays great 
stress, I confess that I have failed to appreciate them ; the sculpture of the femora and tibiae 
are, indeed, similar to that of Tentyria, hut the joints of the tarsi are puffed out below, and not 
concave, with a marginal series of short spines, as in Tentyria and Carabidae. The anterior 
coxae are entire in all Tenebrionidae, while in Amphizoa they are open ; the posterior coxae are 
also entirely different in form and position from all Tenebrionidae known to me. 
The antennae, as observed by Dr. Schaum, though nearly glabrous, are not those of a Dytiscus, 
hut still less are they those of a Tenebrionite ; still it must he admitted that the homogeneous 
structure of the outer articulations, without any lateral spongy portion resembles more nearly 
what is seen in Dytiscidae, than in any other family of Coleoptera. 
To conclude then this portion of the essay, I would briefly state, that the anomalous structure 
of Amphizoa is such as to exclude it absolutely from any known family, and that its position must 
he in a new family, between Carabidae and Dytiscidae, without any distinct point of osculation 
with either; Pelohius on the one hand, and Opisthius on the other being the nearest allies. 
As these conclusions are much at variance with those duduced by others, I take the liberty 
of transcribing a portion of Dr. Schaum’s letter, with a view to hasten as far as possible the 
time of harmonizing the diverse results, which are always obtained in a case of such difficulty. 
“ Amphizoa has, indeed, the posterior coxae of Pelohius, hut there seems to he a greater dif¬ 
ference between its coxae and those of the typical Dytisci than between its coxae and those of 
Ozaena, for instance. This is, however, the only character which I can find to agree with any 
Dytiscus. The antennae are glabrous, hut they are the antennae of a Heteromerous insect, 
and not those of a Dytiscus. All the other characters seem to me to he at variance with the 
water beetles ; configuration of prosternum, metasternum, legs, number of visible abdominal 
segments, and above all the parts of the mouth ! * * * The legs are also different 
from the type of the Carabidae ; they are glabrous and the joints are prefectly those of Tentyria. 
Even the dilatation of the coxae is found in the the Heteromerous tribe. But what now is this 
most anomalous insect? In my opinion a most extraordinary Carabus with many characters of 
theHeteromera. In spite of the exarticulated exterior lobe (of the maxillae) it must be referred 
to the Adephaga on account of its mentum, the number of united abdominal segments, and the 
number of tarsal joints. I prefer much more to put it among the Carahi than among the 
Dytisci, on account of the constricted thorax, the sternal segments, the number of abdominal 
segments, the texture and structure of maxillae, and the ambulatorial legs. The analogies to 
the Heteromera are most striking ; antennae, legs, even the coxae are those of Tentyria. It is 
interesting that this form occurs in California, where the Heteromerous type is so prevalent.” 
Having now laid both opinions before the reader, I leave the subject to the consideration of 
systematists, illustrated by the excellent figures made by Mr. Hitchcock of the various parts of the 
under surface, PI. I, fig. 11, a and b , the antennae 11 c, anterior leg 11 d, and posterior leg 11 e. 
Amphizoa Lee. 
Antennae 11-articulatae filiformes glabrae, articulis internis punctatis ; palpi breves articulis 
5Q 
