108 
REVIEWS. 
MacLeay, and the Bembididae of Stephens), as having been erected on an 
untenable principle, and not possessing characters sufficiently distinctive to 
entitle them to “ a footing of equal importance with the Cicindelidae and 
Carabidaehe thinks u that the most consistent and natural divisions will 
be found in Latreilles’s two grand families, Cicindeletes and Carabici (p. ix. 
Prel Obs.),” which arrangement he has resumed under the terms Cicidelidae 
and Carabidae, dividing the latter into five subfamilies—but in a matter of 
such importance it will be better to let our author speak for himself. .He 
says (p. ix. Prel. Obs.) :— 
“ I have, furthermore, divided the latter (the Carabidae) into five groups or sub¬ 
families, according to the plan set forth by Mr. Westwood, in bis ‘Introduction to 
the Modern Classification of Insects,’ with this difference, however, that I have 
transposed the third and fourth groups, considering it more desirable that the Har- 
palides should immediately precede the Bembidides; and the natural transition 
from Trechus to Bembidium be maintained through the intimate affinities which 
subsist between those remarkable insects, Aepys marinus, Blemus areolatus, Lym- 
naeum nigropiceum, and Cillenus lateralis ; and I have placed Pelophila and the 
Elaphridea in their natural juxta-position with Nebria., though, by so doing, the 
foreign genus Homophron is further removed from the Hydrocantharides; to which, 
at first view, and judging merely from its external structure, it would seem to be 
more nearly allied than it really is ; in this arrangement I have, consequently, fol¬ 
lowed, under certain modifications, Dejean, Erichson, Heer, Redtenbaeher, and, in 
fact, most of the Continental entomologists. 
“ The first group (Brachinides) comprises all the genera which were comprehended 
in the family Brachinidte of MacLeay and Stephens, and corresponds with Dejean’s 
subfamily Truncatipennes. 
“The second group (Scaritides) corresponds with the Scaritides of Dejean, and 
the family Scaritidse of MacLeay and Stephens. 
“ The third group (Carabides) corresponds with the Simplicipedes of Dejean, 
and comprises the Carabidae of MacLeay and Stephens, and the Elaphiridte of 
Stephens.” 
The characters given—“ the anterior tibiae entire, and not notched; 
the anterior tarsi being more or less dilated in the male,” seem not exactly 
to correspond with those assigned by Stephens to the family Elaphridae 
(Man. p. 4); “ anterior tibiae not palmated, without a notch on the side, but 
slightly notched at the apex; anterior tarsi not dilated in the males.” But 
it is observable that in his description of the genera comprised under this 
family, there is not one instance of the anterior tarsi of the male being not 
dilated (the nearest approach being in Notiophilus 11 male with three basal 
joints of anterior tarsi “ scarcely dilated”), so that they may fairly be cha¬ 
racterised as “ more or less dilated,” according to Mr. Dawson’s descrip¬ 
tion ; and the “ slight notch ” at the apex of the anterior tibiae is not 
invariable, and cannot, therefore, be relied on as distinctive. 
The fourth and fifth group, Harpalides and Bembidides, correspond re¬ 
spectively with the Harpalidae of MacLeay and Stephens, and the Bembi¬ 
didae, of Stephens. 
