EUPLECTINI 75 



hexius, along with many other species known to have well formed pronotal 

 teeth. It is a pity that such an important genus should have been so vaguely 

 described as to allow confusion in its composition. R affray (1903) cited Sharp's 

 four species and rugulosus (Reitter) as of doubtful status — a strange situation 

 in which the great majority of the genus could be placed, but the genotype 

 could not! 



Raffray (1908), in his great generic treatment, defined Eurhexius as al- 

 ways having lateral pronotal teeth or tubercles, and incorporated rugulosus 

 (Reitter) and the four species of Sharp without any query. Raffray made so 

 few mistakes (an exception being application of the wrong priority with 

 Thesiuni and Apothinus) , that between 1903 and 1908 he must have seen the 

 Sharp types; at least that is a strong inference which would account for the 

 change in status of these doubtful species between these two dates. 



There is another line of indirect evidence to substantiate the presence of 

 pronotal teeth for Eurhexius, in these doubtful species. In 1882 Reitter de- 

 scribed three species of Rhexius, namely simoni, rugulosus, and procerus. In 

 the case of simoni and procerus his descriptions state definitely that the lateral 

 pronotal margins are denticulate, whereas in rugulosus he states that the 

 pronotum has the lateral margin without denticulations. This is a definite 

 statement by a competent coleopterist. Sharp (1887), in erecting Eurhexius, 

 has no doubt that "Rhexius simonis and R. procerus, Reitter, belong to it." 

 Therefore Sharp included the two species of Reitter, knoivn to have pronotal 

 teeth, with his four species, and did not mention rugulosus of Reitter, which 

 was described in the same paper and did not have pronotal teeth. The inference 

 is that Sharp's four species, with vestitus as a probable genotype, have pronotal 

 teeth. Other Eurhexius by Raffray follow this position. 



This consolidates the limits of Eurhexius, with the exception of Rhexius 

 rugulosus Reitter, which I am unable to place. This latter species may belong 

 in Anarmodiu^ or Fletcherexiu^ if the pronotal margins are not dentate, or in 

 Aporhexius if these margins are crenulate; or if Reitter did not correctly de- 

 scribe his specimen, and subsequent examination of the type by Raffray showed 

 pronotal teeth, it belongs in Eurhexius. I doubt the last assumption on the 

 basis of Reitter's reputation. 



If Raffray (1908) is wrong as to Eurhexius, then at least seven related 

 genera will have to be reexamined comparatively from the types; for example, 

 Eurhexius may be found to contain Sharp's four species with vestitus as geno- 

 type, rugulosus (Reitter) and macrodactylus Fletcher. In this case the species 

 of Raffray, and others by Schaufuss, Reitter, and the author, probably belong 

 in a new genus. 



Until further research can clear up the obscurity, my position is that of 

 the Raffray 1908 diagnosis. Raffray (1903) divided Eurhexius into five groups 

 of species, which I have had to modify slightly: 



Each elytron with three basal foveae Group I 



Each elytron with four basal foveae 2 



