--0 CHARACTER CORRELATION STUDIES OF PROBLEMATIC GENERA OF ALTICINAE IN RELATION TO GALERUCINAE COLEOPTERA : CHRYSOMELIDAE

The closestrelatives to the Alticinae aremembers of the Galerucinae which do not jump and do not have swollen metafemora. Although the Galerucinae have far fewer described species worldwide than the Alticinae they have almost as many described gen era 489 compared to 500, respectively, cf. Seeno and Wilcox, 1982. However, the relationship and evolution of the Galerucinae and the Alticinae is not at all understood. Although Chapuis 1875 lumped these two subfamilies into the Galerucides, most 20th century systems of chrysomelid classification separate them into distinct subfamilies Seeno and Wilcox, 1982, someexceptions such asBoving and Craighead 1931, Crowson 1955, Lawrence and Britton 1991, and some others will be discussed below. Suzuki 1988 used a different classification system for the Chrysomelidae consisting of 9 subfamilies and 19 tribes in which the Galerucinae and the Alticinae were treated as "tribes". Even so Suzuki 1988 basically discussed the similarities and differences of Galerucinae and Alticinae as originating from a common ancestor but with no close relationship to any other existing chrysomelid group. Furth 1989 also recognized the close rela tionship of the Oalerucinae and Altieinae with a possible common ancestry. The only `reliable" way to distinguish these two subfamilies has been the distinctly swollen metafemora of Alticinae and the possession of the internal hind leg organ or metafemoral spring Maulik, 1929. Furth, 1980, 1985. Unexpectedly Furth1980, 1982.1985,1988, 1989 discovered that this metafemoral spring or gan was morphologically different among alticine genera constant within each genus and could be used to divide Altieinae into groups of genera based on spring morphology i.e. spring morpho-groups. Currently all Palearetic, Nearctic, and about one quarter of the Neotropieal alticine genera have fit into six distinct spring morpho-groups Furth, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1989. In general the relation ships of genera in these spring morpho-groups cor roborates the traditional gcnericrelationships found in older keys and catalogues; however, there are some interesting exceptions Furth, 1985, 1989. In the revision supplement of the Coleopterorum Catalogus for Galerucinae, Wilcox 1975 recognized that a number of genera needed to be transferred to the Alticinae because, although they had slender metafemora, they possessed an "extensor apodeme" metafemoral spring. There fore, the traditional external method for separation ofGalerucinae from Alticinae had to be questioned. In addition, there are some Galerucinae with some what swollen metafemora and some other Altieinae withrelatively slender hind legs. Furth 1985, 1988, 1989 stated that the only definitive character sepa rating Alticinae from other chrysomelids was the presence of a metafemoral spring, whether or not they used it to jump. Even though the presence or absence ofametafemoral spring is quite definitive, the use of this single character to delineate these two largest Leaf Beetle subfamilies is somewhat contro versial because it means that a few genera, tradition ally Alticinae, would have to be transferred to Galerucinae, e.g. Orthalgica Crotch Furth, 1985. Suzuki and Furth, l990a, 1990h, 1992. In an attempt to clarify/resolve the position of the Galerucinae and Alticinae, in this study the authors have begun to examine the "problematic/ transitional" genera, such as those transferred from the Galerucinae to the Alticinac by Wilcox 1975 as well as certain other apparently "problematic" genera. It quickly became obvious that these genera were indeed unusual in the morphology of their metafemoral spring, hind wing venation, female spermatheca and male aedeagus. The htnd wing venation, especially the cubitus veins, has been shown to be useful in the higher classification of the ChiysomelidaeJolivet, I 959a, 1959b, Suzuki, 1969, 1988, 1994, Although hind wing venation charac