372 CANARIAN COLEOPTEKA. 



tain, since M. Chevrolat has kindly communicated to me an Olivierian 

 tifpe from his collection. In Grand €anary, however, the examples 

 show a more evident tendenci/ to become pubescent, — even the com- 

 paratively bald ones being seldom free from traces of a shght addi- 

 tional pile ; whilst some (as those from the arid neighbourhood of 

 Las Palmas) have the hairs much more developed, and others (as is 

 the case in the sandy region of Maspalomas, in the extreme south of 

 the island) are excessively pilose and of a paler hue — being densely 

 beset with very fine, Avoolly, elongate cinereous hairs. These last I 

 have indicated as the " y. lanata.''' Assuming therefore that I am 

 correct in regarding these states as conspecific with each other, the 

 H. eremita may be said to be universal throughout the low and in- 

 termediate elevations of (at all events) Grand Canary, Teneriffe, Go- 

 mera, and Palma — in each of which I have taken it, more or less 

 abundantly. From Teneriffe it has likewise been communicated by 

 the Barao do Castello de Paiva ; where, as well as in Gomera, it was 

 captured by Dr. Crotch. 



§ II. Funiculi articuhis seciindus primo distincte Jongior. 

 568. Herpysticus calvus, n. sp, 

 //. praicedenti similis sed paulo minor ; capite prothoraceque minus 

 sculpturatis, illo saepius canaHcula longiore impresso et plaga parva 

 obscura frontaH albidiore distinctius ornato, oculis paulo magis pro- 

 minentibus, hoc minus incequali ; elytris \'ix magis ovatis, plus mi- 

 nus brunneo-subtesseUatis, fere calvis, profunde striato-punctatis, 

 intcrstitiis minus rugulosis ; antennis pecUbusque paulo graciliori- 

 bus et saepius minus pilosis. — Long. corp. lin. 4|-6. 



Herpysticus eremita, Hartimq [nee OlivX Geolog. VerliaUn. Lanz. und 

 Fuert. 141 & 142. 



Habitat in Lanzarota et Fuerteventura, sub lapidibus, passim. 



After allowing so wide a range for variation in the H. eremita, it 

 may perhaps appear inconsistent, prima facie, that I should regard 

 the present insect as distinct from it ; nevertheless, not to mention 

 its many other features, I believe that the fact of the second joint of 

 its funiculus being so much more evidently longer than the basal one 

 is a structural character which would of itself suffice to establish its 

 specific claims. Apart from this, however, it has many pecidiarities 

 essentially its own. Thus, it is on the average a trifle smaller than 

 the eremita ; its head and prothorax (when deprived of their scales) 

 are less sculptured, and the former of these has the rostral channel 

 usually somewhat longer, the eyes more prominent, and (in unrubbed 

 specimens) a more decided (though small) paler frontal patch, whilst 



