CANARIAN COLEOPTERA. 473 



concerning the specimens ; so that I am unable to state in which of 

 the seven islands they were obtained. 



713. Pimelia ascendens, n. sp. 



P. subnitida ; capite antice transversim subelevato et ibidem profundc 

 punetato ; prothorace apice subsinuato, miiiutissime et parcissime 

 punctulato, ntrinque tuberculis magnis obsito ; elytris oblongo- 

 ovalibus apice subacuminatis, grosse et dense subasperato-tuber- 

 culatis, in limbo leviter serratis, singulis eostis tribus (praeter late- 

 ralem) latis obtusis sed valde distinctis (sublaterah tuberculato- 

 subserrata, sed discali et subsuturali simplicibus, postice subito ab- 

 breviatis), instnictis ; antennis tarsisque piccis. — Long. corp. lin. 

 81-11. 



Pimelia barbara, Br. [nee Sol.'], in Webb et Berth. (Col.) 67 (18.38). 

 Habitat in montibus excelsis Teneriffae, usque ad 10,000' s. m. 

 ascendens. 



This is essentially an alpine Pimelia, being confined (so far as I 

 have observed hitherto) to almost the loftiest elevations of TenerifFe — 

 ascending to at least 10,000 feet above the sea. Under such circum- 

 stances I took it in profusion, at the beginning of May 1859, on the 

 Cumbre adjoining the Cafiadas, above Ycod el Alto ; where it was 

 also captured, during the spring of 1862, by Dr. Crotch, and whence 

 it has been communicated by the Barao do Castello de Paiva and 

 M. Hartung. It may easily be known by its narrowish, oblong outline 

 (the elytra being but little rounded at the sides, and not much di'awn 

 downwards at their apex); by its prothorax being subsinuated along 

 the anterior edge ; and by its elytra being very densely beset with 

 large, round, coarse tubercles (which become less raised towards the 

 suture, and smaller towards the sides), and with the three costse, on 

 each, considerably developed, broad, and obtuse — the sublateral one 

 being more or less evidently composed of elongated tubercles, whilst 

 the discal and subsutural ones are simple, and suddenly abbreviated 

 behind. 



An examination of M. Brulle's types, in Paris, convinced me that 

 this is the Pimelia which he referred, in his very inaccurate catalogue, 

 to the P. barbara of Solier. It is, however, totally distinct, even 

 superficially, from that species — being not only smaller, narrower, 

 and very much less roughly sculptured, but likewise with its pro- 

 thorax conspicuously less widened, muc7i less coarsely margined both 

 before and behind, simply sinuated (or subemarginate) in front, 

 instead of being somewhat bisinuated, and with only a few tubercles 

 on either side ; with its scutelliun shorter, and differently shaped ; 



