TL;DR: Ball’s classificatory scheme implies that Limnastis and Micratopus are phylogenetically so remote that they merit a hierarchical status equivalent to that of all other bembidiines.
Abstract: The late Rene Jeannel (e.g., 1946, p. 331) divided the bembidiine carabids, which he regarded as a subfamily Bembidiitae, into four tribes: Anillini, Limnastini, Tachyini, and Bembidiini. He included Micratopus Casey (1914, p. 42) and Limnastis Motschulsky in the Limnastini, although the former genus had previously formed the type of Casey’s tribe Micratopini. Ball (i960) retained Micratopini as a tribe of the Carabidae, but his “Bembidiini” is equivalent to the “Anillini”, “Tachyini”, and “Bembidiini” of Jeannel. Ball’s classificatory scheme thus implies that Limnastis and Micratopus are phylogenetically so remote that they merit a hierarchical status equivalent to that of all other bembidiines. Prior to his death Dr. Jeannel {in litt . ) indicated to me that he had used the name Limnastini rather than Casey’s older name Micratopini because he had not examined sufficient material of Micratopus and preferred the name of the tribe to be based on a well-known genus. After comparison of several species of Micratopus with several Old World species of Limnastis sent to me by Jeannel