S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 49. (Budapest, 1988)

ture, structure of the head, prostornum, abdomen, etc.), Kisanthobia Mars., Bubastea C.G, or Philanthaxia Deyr. show much more consistency with Anthaxia Esch, and Melanophila Esch., than with Buprestis L. or Eurythyrea Gistl. I am not so sure as to the correctness of including Nascionina str. n. and Trachykelina str. n. into the Anthaxiini C.G. : these subtribes have certainly little in common with Buprestis L. and related genera, and have diverged enough from their nearest relatives (or, rather, their relatives have diverged enough from them) to warrant separation at the subtribal - or, possibly, even tribal - level, but their affinities can almost as conceivably be looked for among the Buprestini Leach (perhaps around Dicercina Kerr, or Psilopterina Lac. ), or even Polycestini Lac., as within Anthaxiini C.G. (of course, I speak about affinities in evolutionary - not cladistic! - sense). Out of the remaining subtribes, Xenorhipina str. n. is known to me from but a single specimen (a male Xenorhipis brendeli Lec. ), so their definition is rather vague; similar is the situation with Trigonogeniina Cob. The affinities of the Coomaniellina Bily remain completely unclear: they seem to have something to do with Trigonogeniina Cob. (crenulated pronotal margin), and something with Maoraxiina str. n. (toothed claws), but their relations to some other group - even outside Anthaxiini C.G. - would not cause too much astonishment, either; BILY' s (1974) supposition of their kinship with Kisanthobiina Rieht, is based on a misinterpretation: Kisanthobia ariasi Rob. has simple claws! The affinities between Maoraxia Obb. and Neocuris Frm. are beyond serious doubt, but the differences between them are also important, thence the creation of the separate subtribe for the latter seems reasonable. Whether the similarities between Maoraxiina Hoi. and Coomaniellina Bily (toothed claws, pubescence of the body) reflect some phylogenetical affinity or are based on pure convergence, remains an open question; the conformity of metacoxal plates in Theryaxia Cart. (Anthaxiina C.G.) is almost surely convergent. BELLAMY seems to be rather uncertain regarding the systematic position of Curis C.G. : in the "Catalogue" (BELLAMY 1985) he puts this genus among the Stigmiderini Lac. and, accordingly, it is not mentioned in the key to Australian "Anthaxiae" (BELLAMY et WILLIAMS 1985), while in the "Higher classification" (BELLAMY 1986) he writes of "

Curis Gory et Laporte, of the Anthaxiini", in agreement with the traditional use! In my opinion, Curidina str. n. is indeed best placed in Anthaxiini C.G., between Neocuridina str. n. and Melanophilina Bed. The position of Sphenopterina Lac. is still rather uncertain, and the case for including it into the Anthaxiini C.G. seems not particularly strong. Its species are surely not so widely divergent as to make them - following COBOS (1980) - separate subfamily or even tribe, but as a subtribe they would go almost as well together with the Buprestina Leach or Dicercina Kerr., as they do with the Melanophilina Bed, : the arguments for and against their placement among the Buprestini Leach are nearly as strong (or, rather, as feeble . .. ), as those favouring or opposing the arrangement chosen by me. This problem being, however, only marginally relevant to the main subject of the present paper, I will not pursue it any further. On the grounds of the argumentation presented above, the position of Maoraxia Obb. in the system of Buprestidae Leach can be summarized as follows: Buprestidae Leach Schizopodinae Lec. Julodinae Lac. Buprestinae Leach Acmaeoderini Kerr. Ptosimini Kerr. Mastogeniini L. H. Polycestini Lac. Thrincopygini Lec. Buprestini Leach Stigmoderini Lac. Anthaxiini C.G. Nascionina str. n. Trachykelina str. n. Kisanthobiina Rieht. Bubastina Obb.