﻿WEEVILS 
  OF 
  THE 
  TRIBE 
  OPHHYASTINI 
  — 
  DAVIS 
  491 
  

  

  a 
  purely 
  sexual 
  one 
  in 
  at 
  least 
  a 
  considerable 
  nuniljer 
  of 
  species 
  of 
  both 
  genera 
  

   and 
  possibly 
  in 
  all. 
  

  

  The 
  chiunctor 
  of 
  cavernous 
  or 
  open 
  corbels 
  as 
  used 
  hy 
  Lacordaire 
  

   was 
  pomtod 
  out 
  as 
  undopendablo 
  by 
  LeContc 
  and 
  Horn 
  (1870, 
  p. 
  32). 
  

   Tlio 
  latter 
  authoi*s 
  slate 
  that 
  the 
  articuhitlng 
  cavities 
  of 
  the 
  hind 
  tibiae 
  

   become 
  internal 
  in 
  Eupagoderes. 
  This 
  matter 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  to 
  me, 
  and 
  

   I 
  see 
  no 
  difference 
  between 
  the 
  two 
  genera 
  in 
  that 
  respect. 
  The 
  

   character 
  of 
  the 
  truncate 
  liind 
  tibia 
  used 
  by 
  LeContc 
  and 
  Horn 
  to 
  

   define 
  Eupagoderes 
  certainly 
  does 
  not 
  hold 
  throughout 
  the 
  genus. 
  

   Tiie 
  amount 
  of 
  dilation 
  of 
  the 
  tarsal 
  joints 
  is 
  less 
  in 
  some 
  Eupagoderes 
  

   than 
  in 
  some 
  Ophryastes. 
  Fall 
  (19U7, 
  pp. 
  2G0-2G1; 
  1910, 
  p. 
  189) 
  

   rejected 
  Sharp's 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  presence 
  or 
  absence 
  of 
  adhesive 
  pu- 
  

   bescence 
  on 
  the 
  lobes 
  of 
  the 
  third 
  tarsal 
  joints 
  (a 
  character 
  accepted 
  by 
  

   Pierce) 
  and 
  he 
  was 
  justified 
  in 
  so 
  doing. 
  He 
  accepted 
  with 
  reserva- 
  

   tions 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  lateral 
  tuberosities 
  of 
  the 
  thorax, 
  which 
  

   Sharp 
  had 
  rejected 
  as 
  being 
  unrelial)lc. 
  This 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  most 
  

   reliable 
  character 
  of 
  all, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  subject 
  to 
  a 
  great 
  deal 
  of 
  variation. 
  

   If 
  it 
  were 
  a 
  question 
  of 
  absolute 
  presence 
  or 
  absence 
  of 
  tubercles 
  the 
  

   character 
  would 
  hold, 
  but 
  the 
  distinction 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  indefinite 
  degree. 
  

   In 
  many 
  if 
  not 
  most 
  specimens 
  of 
  Eupagoderes 
  argentatus 
  (LeConte) 
  

   and 
  E. 
  marmoratus 
  Fall, 
  for 
  example, 
  there 
  are 
  small 
  but 
  well-developed 
  

   and 
  plainly 
  visil)le 
  lateral 
  tuberosities. 
  On 
  the 
  other 
  hajul, 
  some 
  

   specimens 
  of 
  Ophryastes 
  have 
  the 
  lateral 
  tuberosities 
  so 
  poorly 
  devel- 
  

   oped 
  as 
  to 
  raise 
  serious 
  doubt 
  as 
  to 
  their 
  correct 
  generic 
  assignment, 
  

   and 
  O.symmetrlcu'i 
  Fall 
  has 
  none 
  at 
  all. 
  The 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  "straight" 
  

   rostral 
  sulci 
  in 
  Ophryastes 
  does 
  not 
  hold. 
  In 
  Eupagoderes 
  sordidus 
  

   {IjdQonie,) 
  for 
  example, 
  the 
  lateral 
  sulci 
  are 
  usually 
  nearly 
  straight, 
  

   while 
  in 
  Ojihryastcs 
  rittafus 
  Say 
  they 
  arc 
  usually 
  slightly 
  arcuate. 
  

   The 
  median 
  sulcus 
  is 
  straight 
  in 
  both 
  genera. 
  A 
  study 
  of 
  both 
  se.xcs 
  

   of 
  various 
  species 
  shows 
  no 
  character 
  upon 
  which 
  the 
  genera 
  may 
  be 
  

   separaterl, 
  Ophryastes 
  breaking 
  up 
  in 
  much 
  the; 
  same 
  fashion 
  as 
  docs 
  

   Eupagoderes 
  and 
  the 
  genitalia 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  groups 
  forming 
  a 
  fairly 
  

   complete 
  series. 
  The 
  retention 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  as 
  distinct 
  genera 
  is, 
  

   therefore, 
  largely 
  a 
  matter 
  of 
  convenience. 
  

  

  The 
  s{)ecies 
  of 
  Eupagoderes 
  have 
  been 
  grouped 
  ijito 
  two 
  keys. 
  The 
  

   following 
  rather 
  un.satisfactory 
  key 
  is 
  an 
  enlargement 
  of 
  that 
  of 
  Fall 
  

   (1010, 
  pp. 
  103-194), 
  which 
  is 
  based 
  upon 
  external 
  characters. 
  The 
  

   key 
  contains 
  several 
  species 
  that 
  I 
  have 
  not 
  seen, 
  these 
  being 
  placed 
  

   as 
  far 
  as 
  possi!)lo 
  from 
  the 
  published 
  descriptions. 
  E. 
  wickhami 
  and 
  

   (icrllntus 
  are 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  key 
  for 
  the 
  benefit 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  prefer 
  to 
  

   rein 
  in 
  th(!m 
  in 
  Eupagoderes, 
  although 
  they 
  will 
  be 
  discussed 
  under 
  

   Ophryastes. 
  B(!cau8e 
  of 
  th(5 
  great 
  amount 
  of 
  variation 
  in 
  certain 
  

   characters, 
  some 
  species 
  will 
  be 
  found 
  under 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  liea(hng. 
  

  

  