170 CANJkRIAN COLEOPTEKA. 



As may be gathered from the above comparative diagnosis, the 

 present Saprinus differs from the nUidulus in being blacker (with 

 scarcely any perceptible senescent tinge), in its forehead being as 

 densely punctured behind as in front, in the punctures and strias of 

 its upper surface being altogether very much finer (the latter being 

 nearly simple, or but delicately cvcnulated), in the anterior angles of 

 its pronotum being rather more obliquely-truncated at their apex 

 and with the shallow depropsion within them a trifle less distinct, in 

 its elytra being somewhat rounder and convexer, with the sutural 

 stria a Httle less abbreviated in front, and the others (particularly 

 the two inner ones) perceptibly shorter, in its prosternum being a 

 little more depressed (or less carinated down the centre) and perhaps 

 somewhat less divergent anteriorly, in its mesosternum being very 

 much less deeply punctured, more lightly emarginate at its apex, and 

 with the angles better defined, and in its antcnnal club being nsuaUi/ 

 paler, or more ferruginous. It is found in company with the S. ni- 

 tididus, but is very much the scarcer of the two. I have, however, 

 taken it sparingly around Arrecife in Lanzarote, close to the Puerto 

 de Cabras in Fuerteventura, and in the sandy region between Las 

 Palmas and the Isleta in Grand Canary. A single example which 

 I captured in the island of Palma I have regarded as a " var. /3 " of 

 this species. It differs merely in having the punctures of its upper 

 surface a little denser — particularly on the elytra, where they ascend 

 more decidedly on either side, nearly filling the whole space between 

 the striae. I believe, however, it is nothing more than a slight in- 

 sular modification of the present insect. 



As to the synonymy of this Saprinus, I am somewhat in doubt. I 

 have therefore referred it to the siibnitidus of de Marseul (with which, 

 judging from the description, in its lightly punctured upper surface 

 and rather flattened prosternum it would seem to agree), in j)i"efer- 

 ence to treating it as new ; nevertheless, since there are many points 

 in which it certainly does not accord with the diagnosis of that insect 

 (such as its blacker, or unmetallic, tint, its humeral stria merging 

 into the subhumeral one, and its prosternal lines being by no means 

 parallel anteriorly, though they do not diverge quite so much as those 

 of the S. nitidulus), I would propose for it the provisional name of 

 proximus, in the event of its proving hereafter to be distinct from 

 the stihnitidus. In some respects it might be assigned to the S. 

 algericus ; but (judging from de Marseul's diagnosis) that appears to 

 be a much smaller species than the present one, and of a pitchy- 

 brown hue. 



