| 

RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBFAMILY AGRYPNINAE 15 
Germar’s interpretation of Adelocera was generally accepted until Hyslop 
(1921 : 621) drew attention to the fact that [as a result of his designation of species 
originally included in the genera Adelocera Latreille, 1829 and Lacon Castelnau, 
1836 to replace the type-species erroneously selected by Thomson (1859 : 103, see 
above and p. 54)] ‘the two genera Adelocera and Lacon have been reversed in their 
application’. Fleutiaux (19250) independently came to the same conclusion and 
the following year he published a correction (Fleutiaux, 1926) to the Schenkling 
catalogue to this effect. As Hyslop does not give any clear indication which 
species are to be included in his interpretation of Adelocera and Lacon, the present 
author has accepted Fleutiaux (1926) as the author and date of the new 
combinations. 
Unfortunately the majority of workers appear to have overlooked Hyslop’s 
and Fleutiaux’s corrections, with the result that there are many apparently 
conflicting generic attributions in the more recent literature. This, together with 
the fact that the type-material of Elater ovalis cannot be found and that as a 
result each worker has his own interpretation of the genus, is the main cause of 
the confusion within the subfamily. 
NOTES ON THE GENERA AND SUBGENERA PLACED IN SYNONOMY WITH Adelocera. 
Agraeus was erected for a single species, mannerheimi Candéze. Candéze (1857 : 166) 
remarks that the genus is based more on general appearance than ‘charactéres 
réelment générique’. The present investigations have shown this to be true. The 
characters used by Fleutiaux (1927 : 88 and 1935a@: 12) in his redefinition are all 
of the variable type discussed on p. 14. The species included by these authors 
display a considerable degree of sexual dimorphism. 
Pericus. Candéze’s comment on Agraeus also applies to this monobasic genus. 
Thirty-five years later (1892c : 485) he remarked that discedens Candéze is a ‘forme 
de transition’ between Pericus and his interpretation of Lacon [=Agrypnus of the 
present work], and that, in this species the generic characters ‘tendent de se 
dégénérer pour rapprocher des Lacon du group II, div. C.’ (Candéze, 1891c : 23, 
obesus Candéze, nebulosus Candéze, etc.). The species which were included in 
this genus display a moderate degree of sexual dimorphism. 
Brachylacon. The type-species, microcephalus Motschulsky, differs from the 
present interpretation (see p. 38) of ovalis Germar, the type of Adelocera, only in 
the depth of the propleural and metasternal tarsal grooves and the structure of the 
fourth tarsal segment. 
Trachylacon was erected to accommodate species differing from Brachylacon in 
the puncturation of the elytra. In species attributed to Tvachylacon the punctu- 
ration is confused and not arranged in regular rows. However, in certain species, 
| such as fulvicollis Motschulsky, the elytral puncturation appears confused but 
closer inspection shows that there is a definite tendency towards a regular striate 
. in the apical portion of the elytra. The characters used by Fleutiaux 
(19352) to redefine the genus are all of the variable type discussed on p. 14. 
Cavicoxum. Pic erected the family Cavicoxumidae for this monobasic genus. 
