360 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 117 



problems involved in this transfer are discussed elsewhere (Triple- 

 horn, 1961). 



The most perplexing task in this revision has been determining 

 the phylogenetic position of Uloporus ovalis Casey. No new material 

 has been placed in collections since the original description was pub- 

 lished in 1894, despite Casey's contention that the species is "widely 

 diffused throughout the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico." A 

 series of USNM specimens from Columbus, Tex., collected by Hub- 

 bard and Schwarz, from which the two specimens forming the basis 

 for Casey's description came, was studied. 



TJlojmrus ovalis possesses a number of features in common with 

 certain species of Diaperini and it is, perhaps, understandable why 

 Casey chose to assign it to this group. A number of these conspic- 

 uous features are considered unusual, or at least not typical of the 

 Diaperini. A distinct dorsal vestiture is found in Pentaphyllus, 

 Alphitophagus , and some of the species of Neomida; a 3-segmented 

 antennal club is found in a West Indian genus as yet undescribed; 

 the stout prosternal "bridge" is approached in several genera, es- 

 pecially so in another undescribed West Indian genus. Actually, 

 the peculiar relationship between prosternum and mesosternum seen 

 in Liodema is of a more "atypical" form than that of Uloporus, and 

 this structure is certainly not of sufficient weight to rule it out of 

 the Diaperini. 



The hindlegs (pi. 6, fig. 64b) are quite different from those of any 

 of the Diaperini encountered in this study. The tibiae lack sharp 

 serrulate margins and the second tarsal segment is distinctly lobed 

 beneath. 



The male genitaha (pi. 6, fig. 64a) are equipped with prominent 

 claspers which have no comiterpart elsewhere in the Diaperini. Clasp- 

 ers of a similar type are found in certain AUecuhdae, Melandry- 

 idae, and Monommidae, but not to my knowledge in any of the 

 Tenebrionidae. 



Except for the character of the legs and male genitalia, Casey's 

 description is, as usual, painstakingly accurate and complete. No 

 new morphological clues have been discovered which woidd enable, 

 with any degree of confidence the placement of this species in its 

 proper place. 



A study of the Neotropical and West Indian Diaperini is under way 

 and it is hoped that, as more is learned about the vast niunber of 

 genera and species from these areas, the phylogenetic status of Uloporus 

 can be determined. 



Since this project may require years, it was deemed advisable to 

 proceed with the publication of the remainder of the treatise, recog- 

 nizing the fact that the retention of Uloporus in the Diaperini is 



