32 z. bouCek 



dorsigera-group, elegans-group, australis-group, aruina-group) and the femur 

 becomes relatively slender (in correlation with the body; some species of the egaia- 

 group, of aruina-group; L. antiqua). The other extreme is, however, reached 

 in the Indo-Australian pediculata-group (for some time regarded as the genus 

 Epexoclaenoides) , in some species of which the small teeth become very numerous, 

 minute and regular, forming an unusual comb (Text-figs 225, 233). 



There seems to be a close correlation between the development of the hind femur 

 and the form of the tibia. In general, the longer the femoral teeth, the more 

 the tibial apex is produced into a spine and the shorter is the outer spur. In 

 the extreme case (texana-group, Text-figs 39, 40) the inner edge of tibia is wavy 

 or the outer side depressed and then separated from its dorsal side at base by a 

 ridge or keel {tricolor-group) . The text-figures mostly show examples of the form 

 of the femur and tibia together and so the gradual change may be followed, as 

 mentioned with the forms of the hind femur. The other extreme, which seems to 

 be the most primitive form, with the apex of tibia almost perpendicularly truncate 

 and the outer spur relatively long, is reached again in the mentioned L. antiqua, 

 the aruina-group, in the American fauna in the cayennensis-gxoup, to a lesser degree 

 in the speif era-group, L. namibica, etc. All species with the outer spur well 

 developed and the apex of tibia hardly produced have the femur with the basal 

 tooth the strongest. 



I hope to have explained a little my reasons why I could not split the genus 

 Leucospis into several genera and why, as a result, I regard it more useful not 

 to split it even into sub-genera but to use instead the concept of species-groups. 



In general, the intraspecific variation seems to be wide and is discussed accordingly 

 under the relevant species. There is, however, a phenomenon of greater interest, 

 namely the occurrence of the orange-coloured instead of yellow-coloured forms 

 within some species. In one case I accepted the subspecific level for this form 

 (L. affinis floridana), in all other cases such specimens are regarded as forms. In 

 L. affinis the orange colour is combined with the more infumate wings. Similar 

 forms are mentioned under L. tricolor (form A), the well known L. gigas, and 

 already Schletterer knew such a form of L. histrio (1890: 246, under macrodon). 

 I have examined such specimens of L. dorsigera from Libya and Egypt, of L. 

 japonica from Nepal and Assam and possibly the little known L. aurantiaca from 

 China also belongs here, very close to L. biguetina. These forms may be regarded 

 as subspecies, when more is known. All seem to develop in arid climates or at 

 least at the fringes of the area of distribution of the species. 



The biological characteristics are mentioned, where known and where suggestive 

 of some value, with the species-groups. 



The genus is cosmopolitan, as already mentioned, generally not reaching smaller 

 islands, except for the species possibly introduced by man, such as L. affinis in 

 the Hawaiian Islands and, perhaps, L. antigua in the Society Islands. 



For practical reasons the species of the Americas, then those of Africa (including 

 the Mediterranean ones) and Madagascar, and the Asiatic and Australian (and 

 Pacific) species, are treated separately. 



