134 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL, 95 
Outside of the dimorphism in the antennae of parvithoram, the heads 
of the two sexes are almost identical, the only difference being slightly 
greater width at the temples in the female (0.466 against 0.434 mm.) ; 
the markings and chaetotaxy are identical, as well as the shape of the 
temples (see figure of male head). 
Subfamily HEPTAPSOGASTRINAE Carriker 
Genus RHOPALOCERAS Taschenberg 
RHOPALOCERAS ONISCUS (Nitzsch) 
Goniodes oniscus NirzscH, in Giebel, Zeitschr. fiir Ges. Naturw., vol. 28, p. 388 
(female), 1866. (Host: Tinamus tao.) 
Goniodes aliceps NirzscH, in Giebel, ibid., p. 389 (male). (Host: Crypturus 
macrourus.’ ) 
A fine series of this species was taken on the type host at Tierra 
Nueva, Sierra Perijaé, Colombia, on July 19, 1941. They agree in all 
respects with the specimen taken on 7¢namus t. tao in Venezuela, from 
which the species was redescribed (Carriker, 1936, p. 107). 
RHOPALOCERAS GENITALIS GENITALIS Carriker 
Rhopaloceras genitalis genitalis CARRIKER, Lice of the tinamous, p. 110, pl. 15, 
figs. 2-2¢c, 1986 (Host: Tinamus serratus ruficeps.) 
Additional specimens of this species were taken on the type host, col- 
5 Kéler (1938, p. 325) suggests that the name Crypiurus macrourus was a mistake for 
Dendrortyx macrourus and that the specimens were stragglers. Dr. Hopkins was inclined 
to accept this theory, but I was rather doubtful, even if the two birds had been together 
in a zoological garden, while in their wild state it would have been utterly impossible, 
gince the birds are not found in the same region at all. However, according to Dr. 
Hopkins (1940, p. 419) Kéler compared a paratype of Rhopaloceras genitalis simplex 
Carriker (sent to Hopkins by the author) with the type of Goniodes aliceps Nitzsch and 
found them ‘absolutely identical with Nitzsch’s type.’”’ This seemed to leave little doubt 
that the true host of R. aliceps (Nitzsch) was Tinamus major castaneiceps of Costa Rica, 
or else some closely related subspecies of 7’. major, and that R. genitalis simplex Carriker 
was a pure synonym of R. aliceps (Nitzsch). 
Recently I received the following comment from Dr. Hopkins, bearing on the identity and 
status of Goniodes aliceps Nitzsch: 
“In the previous note on this species (Hopkins, 1940, pp. 418-421) I discussed the 
identity of &. genitalis simplex Carriker and placed the form in the synonymy of &. aliceps 
(Nitzsch). My reason for this step was that Dr. Kéler, after comparing my male paratype 
of simplex with the male type of aliceps, informed me that they were ‘absolutely identical,’ 
except for differences in the shape of the temporal lobes which are apparently due to the 
accidents of mounting. 
“L. R. Guimaraes has now kindly sent me a copy of Kéler’s most recent remarks on 
Rhopaloceras (Kéler, 1989, p. 2383), contained in a paper which I had not seen because of 
war conditions. These remarks compel me to alter my opinion entirely. © 
“Kéler now synonymizes Rhopaloceras aliceps (Nitzsch) with R. oniscus (Nitzsch) and 
states that the penis of the solitary male in the Nitzsch collection (i. e., the type of 
aliceps) is damaged to such a degree as to render impossible a proper comparison with 
specimens which Carriker described as oniscus. He now states that oniscus and genitalis 
are specifically distinct. 
“Tn view of the fact that the genitalia of the type of aliceps are in such a damaged 
condition, I am forced to withdraw my statement that R. g. simplex is a synonym.” 
Thus it appears, after much controversy, that the status of R. oniscus, R. aliceps, R. g. 
genitalis, and R. g. simplex now definitely remains the same as placed by me in my first 
treatment of the group (Carriker, 1936). 
