1969] Matthews — Scarabaeine Beetles 115 
Museum (nor could any Laporte material), but two specimens from 
Cuba are present in the Laporte de Castelnau Collection in the Na- 
tional Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. In view of the apparent 
loss of Laporte types in Paris, it is well to point out the availability 
of the Melbourne collection in cases of doubt. Since no specific 
specimens were designated as holotypes in Laporte’s day, the Mel- 
bourne specimens could in some cases be designated lectotypes. Not 
all Laporte species are represented in the Melbourne collection, as 
this was his “secondary” series kept after the “primary” one was 
sold (Horne and Kahle, 1937). A quick survey uncovered 23 of 
Laporte’s own species in the subfamily Scarabaeinae alone. 
Uroxys productus Arrow, 1933. 
As previously noted (Matthews, 1966:55), although the origin 
of the type is unknown, this name was given to a species from 
Guadeloupe by Paulian (1939) and the present author followed 
this usage, assuming that Paulian had compared the specimens directly. 
However, on examining the type of U . productus Arrow in the 
British Museum the author found enough differences between it and 
the description of the Guadeloupe specimens previously seen (Mat- 
thews, 1966:54-55) to cast doubt on the identity of the latter with 
productus. He would have let the matter go until direct comparison 
was possible between productus and a Guadeloupe specimen^ except 
that in the meantime Balthasar (1966) redescribed the Guadeloupe 
species under a new name, unaware that a species of Uroxys had al- 
ready been recorded from Guadeloupe and that it had been given the 
name productus Arrow. The introduction of a new name in the 
literature forces an immediate decision, even though the information 
at hand is inadequate. In view of the above-mentioned doubts re- 
garding the conspecificity of the Guadeloupe species and productus 
(which concern mainly the depth and punctuation of the elytral 
striae and some other minor features), it is best for the moment to 
give the Guadeloupe species Balthasar’s new name and to return the 
name productus to a species of unknown origin, represented by the 
unique type in the British Museum. Final determination of the 
problem must await a direct comparison between a Guadeloupe 
specimen and this type. The following synonymy is therefore sug- 
gested, subject to change: 
Uroxys guadeloupensis Balthasar, 1966 
Uroxys guadeloupensis Balthasar, 1966, Entomol. Blatter 62:182-183. 
Uroxys productus auct. ( nec Arrow, 1933, Ann. Mag. Nat. His., Ser. 10, 
