48 
Psyche 
[March 
which had been described by Scudder in 1893. The types are part of 
the collection at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard 
University, and were all collected at Florissant. This type study was 
in conjunction with a survey being made to circumscribe the weevil 
subfamily Cleoninae and to revise the included genus Lixus. 
The characters which separate the Cleoninae from other subfamilies 
of the Curculionidae are: (1) antennal scrobes originating on the 
sides of the beak and curving abruptly downward to terminate beneath 
the base of the beak, (2) tarsal claws connate at the base, (3) labial 
palpi short and positioned on the ventral face of the labium at either 
end of the ligular suture, (4) ligula attached to the terminal margin 
of the prementum, (5) tegmen of the male lacking posterior dorsal 
lobes, (6) anal veins 2dA2 and 2dA3 usually entire in the hind wings, 
(7) eyes either vertically elongated, ovate or reniform. Obviously, 
dissection of a specimen would be required to examine the genitalia 
and the wings. The other five characters in order to be visible would 
require a precise orientation of the beak and tarsal claws, yet the 
combination of all these characters is necessary for inclusion of a weevil 
in the Cleoninae. 
In none of the six cotype specimens of Cleonus exterraneus Scudder, 
the two of Cleonus degeneratus Scudder, or in the genotype of 
Eocleonus subjectus Scudder are the labium or the tarsal claws visible. 
Neither are the eyes nor the antennal scrobes sufficiently well preserved 
or correctly positioned to permit accurate determination except in the 
genotype specimen of Eocleonus subjectus. Two characters in this 
latter specimen rule out the probability of its inclusion in the 
Cleoninae. First, the visible eye is elongated horizontally instead of 
dorso-ventrally as is the case in every modern, narrow-eyed Cleonine 
weevil I have seen. Second, the antennal scrobe is directed toward the 
eye as in some of the broad-nosed weevils. Not only are the characters 
that are preserved in all of the examined specimens insufficient to 
permit the species to be placed in the Cleoninae, but they are also 
too vague to allow accurate placement in any other subfamily. There 
is simply not enough detail preserved to give any substantial clues to 
the correct taxonomic status of the specimens. 
In his 1893 report, Scudder also described Cleonus foersteri and 
Cleonus primoris, each based on a single specimen. The illustration 
of foersteri indicates that this species most nearly approaches a true 
Cleonus in the shape of the beak and eye, but other Cleonine characters 
are not apparent. The location of the type specimen is not known. 
