RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBFAMILY AGRYPNINAE 231 
MERISTHUS Candéze 
Subgenus Meristhus Candéze, 1857 : 162. Type-species: Elater lepidotus Palisot de Beauvois, 
by original designation. 
Rhaciaspis Arnett, 1952 : 121. Type-species: Elater lepidotus Palisot de Beauvois, by original 
designation. 
Subgenus Sulcimerus Fleutiaux, 1947:255. Type-species: Meristhus quadripunctatus Candéze, 
by subsequent designation (Arnett, 1955 : 617). 
GENERIC DIAGNOSIS. Each tarsal claw with a group of setae near the base (Text-fig. 11). 
Tibial spurs absent (Text-fig. 10). Mesepimeron and mesepisternum do not form part of 
margin of mesocoxal cavity (Text-fig. 2). Second and third antennal segments cylindrical, 
not triangular like the fourth and following segments (Text-fig. 13). Antennal groove extending 
beyond the anterior half of the prosternopleural suture and deep enough to accommodate the 
rolled antennae. Body clothed with scales. Prothorax not restricted behind the anterior 
angles; lateral carinae attain the anterior margins. Propleurae with (Meristhus s. str.) or 
without (subgenus Sulcimerus) depressions for the reception of the anterior tarsus. Scutellum 
with distinct median longitudinal carina. Tarsi simple, without ventral lobes. 
HISTORY OF THE GENUS. Candéze established the genus for those species in 
which the scutellum bears a longitudinal carina. 
There has been some difference of opinion concerning the type-species of Meristhus. 
Golbach (1969a) discusses the problem, which probably stems from the fact that 
not only did Hyslop (1921 : 656) designate scrobinula [sic] Candéze as the type- 
species, but Candéze, who was not in the habit of designating type-species for the 
genera he established, has already on two occasions made statements which, in my 
opinion, amount to the designation of the type-species of Meristhus. 
Candéze (1857 : 162), writing of Meristhus, states ‘ce petit genre, qui a pour 
type l’espéce suivante, se distingue des Lacon et tous les autres Agrypnides par la 
conformation tout particulaire de l’ecusson’. The first species, both in the key and 
in the text is lepidotus Palisot de Beauvois. I believe that Fleutiaux (194Ie : 47) 
was fully justified in accepting this statement as a valid designation of the type- 
species of Meristhus. Forty years later Candéze (1897: 12), in describing M. 
erinaceus from Borneo, remarks that this species is ‘un peu plus grande que la 
M. scobinula [from China] type du genre...’. It seems probable that on this 
occasion Candéze referred to scobinula as the type-species either because he has 
forgotten his earlier statement or, because he was at that time dealing only with 
oriental species. Hyslop’s designation is clearly not based on Candéze (1897) as 
he states that it is a ‘present designation’. Why he selected this species is unknown, 
but his choice may well have been influenced by the fact that scobinula occurs in 
Mexico. 
In the absence of intermediate forms, the retention of the subgenus Sulcimerus, 
which includes those species possessing grooves on the propleurae for the accom- 
modation of the anterior tarsi, appears justified at the present time. However, 
when the four species at present unknown to me (see below) and additional material 
belonging to the genus is available, it may become apparent that, as in Agrypnus, 
this characteristic is of no value above the specific level. 
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM. The sexes appear to be indistinguishable externally. 

