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

are more divergent from one another than they are from members of other groups). This is evidently the case with the "Buprestinae": this "taxon" includes e.g. Dicercini Kerr, and Anthaxiini C.G., two groups having comparatively little in common with each other, while excluding their closest relatives, respectively "Psilopterini" (BELLAMY 1985) and "Sphenopterinae" - both on the basis of vague and incosistent characters, none of which could have been described by COBOS (1980) himself without such qualifiers as "generally", "usually", "only rarely", "in most cases", "not well developed", "apparent", etc. In my opinion, the subfamily Buprestinae Leach should be divided into the following tribes: Acmaeoderini Kerr., Ptosimini Kerr., Mastogeniini L. H., Polycestini Lac. (and possibly one or several others out of the old "Polycestinae"), Thrincopygini Lec, Buprestini Leach, Stigmoderini Lac, Anthaxiini C.G. and Chrysobothrini C.G. In this arrangement, the Buprestini Leach include all the "Chalcophorinae" of COBOS (1980): in fact, the traditional Chrysochroini C.G., Chalcophorini Lac, Psilopterini Lac, Dicercini Kerr., and Buprestini Leach form a continuous chain of closely related groups, differentiated at definitely lower level than Acmaeoderini Kerr., Anthaxiini C.G. or Chrysobothrini C.G. Similarly, the Anthaxiini C.G., as interpreted by me, include the subtribes Nascionina str.n., Trachykelina str. n.

, Kisanthobiinia Rieht.

, Bubastina Obb., Philanthaxiina str. n., Coomaniellina Bily, Melanophilina Bed., and Sphenopterina Lac. - traditionally counted among the Buprestini Leach or separated into tribes of their own - as well as all the "Anthaxiini" of earlier authors (e.g. BELLAMY 1985). It may seem, that in placing Maoraxia Obb. in the Anthaxiini C.G. I do exactly what BELLAMY et WILLIAMS (1985) and BELLAMY (1985, 1986a) have already done, yet the real meaning of our respective actions is quite different: their concept of the tribe is much narrower than mine, approximating rather that of my subtribe Anthaxiina C.G. ! In my opinion, Maoraxia Obb., differs from Anthaxia Esch., Anilara Ths., Pseudanilara Thery, Notogra- phus Ths., Tetragonoschema Ths., or Brachelytrium Obb. in so many ways, that its inclusion into the Anthaxiina C.G. would make this subtribe evidently heterogeneous. The fact of close affinity between Maoraxia Obb. and Neocuris Frm. does not alter this conclusion, because the latter is itself not a member of Anthaxiina C.G. and should be placed in a separate subtribe. Thus, I perfectly agree with BELLAMY et WILLIAMS (1985), that "Maoraxiini Hoi." should be included into Anthaxiini C.G., However - and here my opinion differs from theirs - not as a synonym of their "Anthaxiini" (Anthaxiina C.G. in my interpretation) but, instead, as an independent subtribe. The closest relative of Maoraxia Obb. and Neocuris Frm. is apparently Curis C.G. (including the Neotropical "Cylind

rophora" bella Guér.), but this genus constitutes a separate subtribe (as do also the genera allied to Xenorhipis Lec. ). The subtribes of the Anthaxiini C.G. (sensu novo) may be distinguished from one another and from the Buprestini Leach on the following way: A (B) Sensory foveae absent (sensory pores dispersed) or placed on ventral surface of antennái joints _ , , _ Buprestini Leach B (A) Sensory foveae placed on the distal surface of antennái joints Anthaxiini C.G. 1 1 (10) Antennái grooves closed: epistome with broad lateral lobes 2 2 (3) Elytral striae consist of coarse (several times coarser than those in between) punctures Nascionina str. n. 3 (2) Elytral striae absent or do not differ in punctulation from intervals 4 4 (5) Scutellum invisible; elytra uneven; sternal cavity formed by metasternum alone Trachykelina str. n. 5 (4) Scutellum visible; elytra regularly convex; sternal cavity formed by both meso- and metasternum 6 6 (7) Prosternum with a well-developed gular lobe Tr

. ..... , Kisanthobuna Rieht. 7 (6) Prosternum without gular lobe 8 8 (9) 1st and 2nd sternites separated by a sharply defined suture Bubastina Obb. 9 (8) First two sternites almost perfectly fused, without apparent suture Philanthaxiina str. n. 10 (1) Antennái grooves open anteriorly: epistome without distinct lateral lobes 11 11 (26) No clypeofrontal suture 12