igO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. Ill 



frons. Eyes absent. With 4 setae surrounding each eye region. Two 

 unpaired lateroepicranial setae on each gena. Gula short and nar- 

 row. One "sensory" appendix on second segment of antenna. Mandi- 

 ble with well-developed retinaculum. Presternum of prothorax un- 

 divided, but may be deeply incised laterally near apex, almost separat- 

 ing ofif a small, narrow, posterior median sclerite. Mesothorax and 

 metathorax with prominent long impressions, up to 7 spinelike setae 

 on each episternum. Abdominal mediotergites with impressions reach- 

 ing to middorsal suture ; first to seventh segments with conspicuous 

 transverse rugae, eighth segment with pits more nearly circular ; i an- 

 terior mediotergal seta present on each mediotergite ; conspicuous setae 

 unpaired on anterior part of segments, but approaching a semipaired 

 arrangement in posterior transverse row. Abdominal pleurites large, 

 decreasing in size from first to eighth segments. Spiracles noticeably 

 widened anteriorly, subpyriform ; situated in anterior part of segments. 

 Material used in study. — The only specimen available for exami- 

 nation was a 5-year-old larva received through the courtesy of Dr. 

 W. H. Anderson, U. S. Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quaran- 

 tine, Washington, D. C. 



I ; Huntington Beach, Calif. ; reared from eggs that hatched June 3, 1935 ; 

 M. W. Stone. (U.S.N.M.) 



SUMMARY OF TAXONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS 



In the Lepturoidini, relationships based upon larval characters 

 agree closely with those founded upon careful study of the adults. 

 Recognized subspecies are morphologically indistinguishable in the 

 larval stage , closely allied species appear to be more readily distin- 

 guished as adults than as larvae, as evidenced by the species of Ludiiis 

 included in the cupreiis group and the aeripennis group ; but group 

 relationships are revealed as clearly by the larvae as by the adults. 

 The evidence from larval studies should be considered in taxonomic 

 revisions. However, such evidence must be used with exceeding care, 

 because it is based upon a very small proportion of the existing species. 



Rightly or wrongly, at the beginning of this study the type species 

 were looked upon as the ultimate criteria for the determination of 

 generic status. It was believed that any given larva could be classified 

 to genus by comparing it with genotype material. In practice this 

 proved futile, especially for large genera, because only a very small 

 proportion of the available species of each large "genus" bore evi- 

 dent close relationship to the genotype. The supraspecific unit that 

 stood out clearly as a measure of relationship was the "species group," 



