1988] 
Wolfe — Hydrovatus methlini 
335 
Previously there were tabular errors associated with two characters. 
Character-2 (arrangement of labial spines) for members of Q. com- 
pressa should have read 0, not 1. For character- 14, 1 intended prox- 
imity of the metafemoral base to the metacoxal lobes to be coded 
dichotomously; therefore, each 2 in that column should have been 1 
and the 1 recorded for specimens of L. lugubris and L. copelatoides 
should have been 0. These were tabular errors only and were not 
incorporated into the phylogeny proposed by Wolfe (1985). It was 
indicated that medial mandibular setae were absent in all hydropo- 
rines; however, there is a reduced row on specimens of M. mexica- 
nus Sharp and O. rivalis (Gyllenhal) that is difficult to see; 
therefore, character 1 should have read 0, not 1, for these two spe- 
cies. The discovery of medial mandibular setae in M. mexicanus and 
O. rivalis did not alter their phylogenetic placement; these two taxa 
still are regarded as rather apotypic. 
Previously, I was not sure about the status or placement of L. 
lugubris and L. copelatoides. However, further study (Roughley 
and Wolfe, 1987) adequately demonstrated that those species 
formed a distinct unit and they were assigned to a new genus, Lac- 
cornellus, and Laccornellus is included in the analysis below. 
Before analysis with PAUP was conducted, groups of identical 
taxa were identified and each group was represented by one species. 
With these modifications, computer analysis revealed more than 100 
equally parsimonious trees: however, it is interesting to note that a 
consensus tree of these first 100 trees showed the same basic patterns 
as previously proposed in Wolfe (1985). 
To reduce the number of equally parsimonious trees below 100, 1 
represented several groups considered to be monophyletic by one 
species. L. triangularis (Fall) was used for Lioporeus, L. kocai 
(Ganglebauer) for Laccornis, U. lacustris (Say) for Bidessini, and 
M. cribatellus Fairmaire for the clade that includes Methlini and 
Hydrovatini. Justification for monophyly of Lioporeus and Lac- 
cornis is based on information in Wolfe and Matta (1981) and 
Wolfe and Roughley (in press) respectively. Bidessini is considered 
monophyletic based on metacoxal process structure. Justification 
for monophyly of Methlini and Hydrovatini is not conclusive, as 
long as Queda is included in Hydrovatini; however, until more 
characters are discovered to clarify the phylogenetic position of the 
enigmatic Queda, I assume it shares a most recent common ancestor 
with Hydrovatus and that the distinct gap between metafemora and 
