248 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Vol. LXXIV 



Though apparently belonging near C. melas (Haan), the species 

 has been referred by Karny to Conocephalus in its most limited 

 sense (the subgenus Conocephalus as recognized by us), due to the 

 absence of prosternal spines. We find that the prosternal spines 

 are well developed in melas (as is normal in the subgenus Xiphidion), 

 much smaller in C. formosus (Redtenbacher) and reduced to mere 

 tuberculations at the latero-caudal angles of the prosternum in 

 vestitus. 



As a result we do not believe this character can be given higher 

 than specific diagnostic significance in the present case and that 

 the subgenus Xiphidion will fall as a synonym of the subgenus 

 Conocephalus, unless other characters exist to warrant its separation. 



Further study, however, we believe necessary before final action 

 can be taken. 



LISTROSCELINAE 



Karny has recently described a genus, Cecidophaga, 86 related to 

 the genera discussed below and which, in our opinion, should 

 unhesitatingly be referred to the Listroscelinae. He has again 

 dogmatically followed the assignments of Brunner and is confused 

 by the fact that that author placed Teratura in the Conocephalinae 

 (as at present understood), but the genus Xiphidiopsis in the 

 Listroscelinae. This is one of the major reasons why Karny feels 

 unable to assign Cecidophaga to a definite subfamily. 



We feel certain that Teratura and Xiphidiopsis are related 

 genera of the Listroscelinae. The spines of the cephalic tibiae 

 are not unusually elongate in certain species of these genera, a 

 character separating most of the Listroscelinae from other sub- 

 families. The general structure, however, shows such decided 

 similarity to that of species of other unquestioned Listroscelids, 

 that to separate them from that subfamily would be a violation 

 of common sense. In fact both types of spination can be found 

 in different species of the genus Xiphidiopsis itself. 



Having modified the characterization of the Listroscelinae to 

 cover the genera Teratura, Xiphidiopsis, Cecidophaga and Lipo- 

 tacies, little of the confusion encountered by recent workers remains. 



To do this admittedly weakens the distinction between the 

 related subfamilies, but it is our experience that, as the species of 

 the World become better known, the impossibility of separating 



86 Treubia, I, p. 292, (1921). 



