S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 44/2. (Budapest, 1983)

aedoeagus) of some Nycterinus (tribus Eleodini) without specifying that what we see is the dorsal side; the same author in 1962 has illustrated the aedeagus of some Neotropical Ulosonia; in 1963 SPILMAN has illustrated the phallus (only tegmen) of some American, also Caribbean Ulomini of genus Mycotrogus

, offering some very good drawings. In more recent years a number of students deal with the external male genitalia, such as FREUDE (1967), ARDOIN (1967), TRIPLEHORN (1970), PENA (1974), and several other of whom we will say something in the Comments. The nomenclature of the male copulatory organ - also limited to Coleoptera or even to Tenebrionidae - is not at all uniform among the various authors who have dealt with this organ. According to SNODGRASS penis or median intromittent organ is the same of phallus (practically the greek translation of "penis"), including the phallobase, the aedeagus, the endophallus and various processes of the phallobase (i.e.the parameres) and the aedeagus (laciniae, clavae). The name laciniae is used by G.MEDVEDEV 1968, clavae by B

LAISDELL 1909 or by DOYEN&TSCHINKEL. According to KOCH 1955 lacinia would be different from clava. The aedeagus is typically a sclerotic tube. It may lack in some Tenebrionid genus. The phallobase is practically the basal piece of G.MEDVEDEV and of DOYEN and co-workers; the basale of KOCH 1958 and of LA RIVERS 1943; the parameres (which can be sometimes fused) correspond to apical sclerite or apicale of KOCH 1958 and to apical sclerite of TRIPLEHORN 1965. DOYEN (1973) speakes of parameres. Also DOYEN 1973 and DOYEN &TSCHINKEL speak of basal piece. Basale and apicale constitute the so called tegmen (KOCH, 1958; G.MEDVEDEV, 1968,p. 24, fig.

63), but not the tegmen as defined by SHARP & MUIR, which is synonym of phallobase. G.MEDVEDEV s penis corresponds to aedeagus of SNODGRASS; at the base of this organ in Opatrinae sometimes two apophyses are recognizable. KOCH'

s (1958) penis corresponds to aedeagus and aedeagus to phallus. Limiting to a few examples of authors who use other terminologies I quote DOYEN & TSCHINKEL (1982) according whom in Coleocnemis (p. 144) the median lobe or penis is adnate to the basal piece of aedeagus, so admitting that aedeagus is somewhat more complex and comprehensive than penis. Actually, according to SNODGRASS, penis is something more comprehensive than aedeagus. WIGGLESWORTH (1953) considers aedeagus the same as intromittent penis ad not a part of penis. BLAISDELL (1909) speaks of edeagophore (recte aedeagophore) instead of tegmen; the terms apicale and edeagus (recte aedeagus) are used in the correct sense (Pl.l,n.3 and 19; P1.2.N.1 and 8). LA RIVERS (1943) following BLAISDELL, speaks for Eleodes of edeagophore instead of tegmen; SPILMAN, in his accurate description of the Ulomine Doliodesmus charlesi uses SNODGRASS' nomenclature, though instead of phallobase and aedeagus he speaks (figs 4-7, p.

150) of ventral part and dorsal part respectively. In SPILMAN'

s work on Salpingidae (1967) penis is aedeagus; in WATT' s work on Perimylopidae (1967) aedeagus is tegmen; from the figure (fig. 11,p. 112) aedeagus is apparently visible at apex. In his work of 1970 he calls aedeagus the tegmen and penis the aedeagus (p. 248, figs 13-14). In TRIPLEHORN'

s work on Megasida (1967) "male" aedeagus (probably a lapsus) is tegmen (indeed the author speaks of "apical sclerite"); the same holds for his work on Diaperini of 1965 (aedeagus). TRIPLEHORN & WATROUS (1979) studying some American Phaleria use the name penis for aedeagus. It should be useless to go on with this review. In this paper the term aedeagus will be used in SNODGRASS' s sense; phallobase will be called basale; let us mention that according to SNODGRASS the phallobase is often a sclerotic ring and sometimes forms a cylindrical theca completely investing the aedeagus. In some species here described the basale is fused with the apicale to form a tegmen; the apicale very often is represented by the parameres, in some cases completely fused. MATERIAL AND TECHNIQUE The material utilized in this work mainly comes from author' s personal collection; only partly it belongs to some European Museums such as British Museum (N.H.), Munich Staatssammlung, Hungarian National Museum of Natural History (Budapest) etc. Most of species of Caribbean Islands have been collected by Dr.P.W.HUMMELINCK of the Utrecht University (Antilles, Colombian and Venezuelan coast, Leeward Ids.) and by the author (Venezuelan mainland and Venezuelan islands). All species have been determined by the author, though in some instances previously determined by other specialists (Dr.

KASZAB, Mr.KULZER); many of them have also been described as new by the author. For the extraction of male genitalia the specimens were previously kept in a humidifier for