Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles  Checklist Home

Carabidae

Martin Luff & Andrew Duff

Feedback: Please forward notice of errors and corrections to ().

Introduction

The currently used nomenclature on the British Carabidae is based on that in Lindroth (1974) and Pope (1977). More recent lists that have updated the nomenclature of some or all of the British fauna include Lindroth (1985, Fennoscandia), Lohse & Lucht (1989, central Europe), Turin (1990, 2000, Netherlands), Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995, Russia), Hansen (1996, Denmark), Hůrka (1996, Czech & Slovak republics) and Anderson et al. (1997, 2000, Ireland). There have also been specialised lists for the genus Carabus, sensu lato (Turin et al., 1993; Deuve, 1994). However there is still no general consensus on the correct names for several of the British species, so the currently accepted names are usually adhered to in the following list.

The limits of the family Carabidae have remained constant in regard to the British fauna, since the Cicindelidae were included (as subfamily Cicindelinae) by Lindroth (1974). On the larger scale of the European or world fauna, however, there have been changes that do not affect the more limited British list. In particular, Erwin & Sims (1984) and Erwin (1985) recognised the separate family Trachypachidae, but included the former families Paussidae and Rhysodidae within the Carabidae. Lawrence & Newton (1995) followed the first two of these changes, but retained the Rhysodidae as a separate family.

There is also no general agreement as to the arrangement and status of supra-generic taxa within the Carabidae. In an introduction to the classification of Caraboidea, Ball et al. (1998) compare many of the various arrangements that have been advocated. They conclude that points of conflict far outnumber any generally held areas of agreement. The present list is based on the system of Lawrence & Newton (1985), but with one main change. Lawrence & Newton (1985) consider the broscines to be a tribe within the subfamily Trechinae. However all other authors either treat them as a separate higher taxon, e.g. family Broscidae alongside family Trechidae  (Deuve, 1993), or as a subfamily separate from the Trechines e.g. subfamily Broscinae, whereas Trechitae are considered a supertribe within the subfamily Psydrinae (Erwin, 1985) or a separate subfamily Trechinae. Detailed studies of the broscines have since supported their separate status (Roig-Juňent, 1998). We therefore retain Broscinae as a separate subfamily from the Trechinae.

A smaller confusion surrounds the placement of the Platynini (including Sphrodrini). Traditional British and European classifications have included these in the Pterostichini, e.g. Hansen (1996) for Denmark, Turin (2000) for the Netherlands. However Lawrence & Newton (1985) not only agreed with Erwin (1985) in considering the Platynini as a separate tribe, but placed them near the Perigonini, Zuphiini and other ‘truncatipennes’ groups. The latter placement can be supported on larval characters (Arndt, 1998). However although retaining the Platynini, we prefer to place them immediately after the Pterostichini, as in the traditional arrangement. The tribe Licinini is here considered to include Badistriini, following Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995). We have not included subtribe names in the list, although the Harpalini and Platynini, in particular, are often subdivided at this level.

The treatment of the major genera, Carabus, Bembidion, Pterostichus, Amara, Harpalus and Agonum in the present list has tried to follow the divisions currently generally accepted by most European workers. This inevitably has resulted in some inconsistencies between these genera. The limits of Carabus are generally agreed, at least for the British fauna, so no ‘new’ generic names are used. The names and arrangement of subgenera of Carabus generally follow Deuve (1994), except that C. arvensis is placed in Eucarabus, following Turin et al. (1993), Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995) and Hurka (1996). The classification of Carabus in Turin (2000) differs in several ways, and has not been followed here.

Bembidion, although the largest genus of European carabids, is seldom split into separate genera. Only Ocys (two British species) and Cillenus (a single species) are separated by Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995), Hurka (1996) and Hansen (1996). We have used these genera, as well as treating Bracteon (two species) as a distinct genus, based at least partly on larval features (Luff, 1993). Most European taxonomic works (excepting Hansen, 1996) now consider Poecilus to be a separate genus from Pterostichus, and this is followed here. The remaining taxa within Pterostichus are considered as subgenera, although generic status for some or all may well be justified. Similarly, only Curtonotus is separated from Amara as a distinct genus, following Kryzhanovskij et al. (1995). We follow Telfer (2001b) in considering Ophonus as a distinct genus, but have not used the genus Pseudoophonus, which remains within Harpalus (see Kryzhanovskij et al., 1995). Agonum is the only one of these traditionally large genera which is now generally split into a number of genera. However Europhilus remains as a subgenus of Agonum.

Other than changes in synonomies given in the list, 10 species have been added since Pope (1977): the  references for these are given in Table 1, as well as in the footnotes after each subfamily in the main list. No species have actually been deleted from Pope’s list, although some names have been lost due to synonomy or homonomy. The list does include not only selected sub-fossil species no longer occurring in Britain or Ireland (marked †), but also occasional introductions and species now considered extinct.

Table 1: Species added to the British list since Pope (1977)

Checklist

References

Last updated: 30th October 2001