104 WATT 
National Museum of New Zealand, Wellington (NMNZ), R.R. Forster, B.A. 
Holloway, G.W. Ramsay, G.V. Hudson, A. Harris, N. Hornibrook, H. Wellman, 
C.A. Fleming, A. Castle, J.T. Salmon, R.A. Falla, R.A. Ordish. 
Canterbury Museum, Christchurch (CMNZ). F.W. Hutton, P.M. Johns, R. 
Pilgrim. 
THE GENUS MIMOPEUS 
Tribal placement of Mimopeus 
Mimopeus under the name Cilibe was included under the predominantly 
Australian tribe Helaeini. However, Gebien (1938-42) in his Katalog Teneb- 
rioniden listed it in the predominantly Australian tribe Nyctozoilini without giving 
any reasons. However, I believe the placement in Helaeini is correct. This opinion 
is based on a superficial examination of the Australian genera Helaeus, 
Pterohelaeus, and Saragus and associated larvae, but it remains to be checked. 
Mimopeus differs from these Australian genera in lacking hind wings (Pterohelaeus 
is fully winged). It differs from Helaeus as the sides of the pronotum and the elytra 
are not thinly explanate. 
The tendency to develop foliate lateral expansions of pronotum and elytra is 
not uncommon in Tenebrionidae, and has apparently evolved independantly a 
number of times in widely separated tribes; e.g. Eurychorini (Eurychora etc); 
Eleodini (Embaphion); Helaeini, Cossyphini. Foliate expansions are not present 
on the elytra of all species of Mimopeus, being entirely absent in M. rugosus, M., 
convexus, M. tibialis and M. impressifrons, and poorly developed in other species. 
Gebien (1938-42), for unspecified reasons, placed the New Zealand genus 
Mitua (=Pseudopatrum) next to Mimopeus in his catalogue. Mitua is quite unlike 
either Nyctozoilini or Helaeini in adult structure, especially of aedeagus and 
ovipositor, Its larval structure (Hudson 1934 : 86 and Plate 9, fig.3a) is not at all like 
that of Mimopeus. Mitua belongs in Adeliini. 
Of New Zealand Tenebrionidae, Mimopeus is much more likely to be 
confused at first sight with Pheloneis (Adeliini) rather than with Mitua. In 
Pheloneis the clypeus is very small, there are distinct striae formed by rows of 
punctures in the elytra, the intercoxal processes are quite unlike those of 
Mimopeus, intercoxal processes and abdominal sternites lack submarginal grooves, 
and the mentum is more conyex and has more strongly rounded sides. There are 
other less obvious differences, which reflect the comparatively remote relationship 
of the tribes Helaeini and Adeliini. 
Changes in specific nomenclature 
In this study it has been found necessary for a variety of reasons to place 
certain specific names in synonymy. The main cause of this synonymy is the failure 
of earlier workers to appreciate the degree of geographical variation in speCies. 
