S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 64. (Budapest, 2003)

Table 1. Comparison of Athamas, Leptathamas, Bulolia. Carapace leng AME were used by relative somatic dimensions th (CL) and diameter of Athamas Leptathamas Bulolia Carapace relative height 75%ofCL 61% of CL 52% of CL Carapace relative width 88% of CL 71 % of CL 73% of CL Eye field relative length 54% of CL 69% of CL 61% of CL Clypeal height 46% of A ME 45% AME 16% of AME Relative size of ALE 69 % of AME 45 % AME 41% of CL Spines of first tibia 6 pairs 3 pairs 3 pairs Spines of first femur Three dorsal Three dorsal Numerous dorsal Spines of first tarsus Present Missing Missing Embolus Twisted/coiled Twisted Twisted With these metric data I only tried to circumscribe the obvious differences (see Figs 27-38). This was all that was justified by the limited material I had. Type species were used to characterise the genera, except A thamas. All the specimens of Athamas deposited in the HNHM belong to Athamas guineensis. The rationale for using Athamas guineensis, instead of the type species, Athamas whitmeei, for characterising somatically the genus was that there are only minor interspecific differences in the genus Athamas (Berry et al. 1996) There is an evident gradient from Athamas (high and wide carapace, short eye field, high clypeus, many tibial-, but few femoral spines) to Bulolia (low and narrow carapace, long eye field, low clypeus, 3 pairs of tibial-, many femoral spines) or vica versa (Table 1), Leptathamas occupies an intermediate position. However, the male copulatory organ of Leptathamas shows more affinities with that of Bulolia than that of Athamas. Since there are no females known from Bulolia, grouping together the three genera merits further study, but the shape of the carapace suggests a significant degree of relationship of these. Acknowledgements - I would like to thank to Drs Sándor Mahunka, Nikolaj Scharff, Wanda Wesolowska and Csaba Csuzdi for their valuable comments and helpful advice concerning taxonomy. Barbara Patoleta gave access to her high quality unpublished drawings of all known Athamas species, which I highly appreciate. I am indebted to Nikolaj Scharff for loaning material from the Zoological Museum, Copenhagen and Dr Péter Balogh for additional information about the localities of the specimens of Leptathamas and Furculattus. This study was supported also by a grant from the European Commission's programme "Transnational Access to Major Research Infrastructures" to COB1CE (Copenhagen Biosystematics Center). I am grateful to Robert R. Jackson and Domir Debakker for their comments on the manuscript.