600 CANARIAN CULEOPTERA. 



coloribus (articulo primo obscure picescentiorc); pcdibiis paiilo mi- 

 nus rufescentibus. — Long-, corp. lin. l^. 



Trogopliloaus biliueatus, Erich., Kiif. dcr Mark Brand, i. COO (1839). 



, Id., Gen. et Spec. Staph. 80(3 (1839). 



, Kraatz, Nat. dcr Ins. Beutsch. ii. 872 (1856). 



, WuJl., Cat. Mad. Col 201 (18.57). 



Habitat Canariam Grandem, semel tantum lectus. 



If the preceding species be rightly identified (as I believe to be the 

 case) with the European T. riparius, I think that the present one 

 should decidedly be referred to the (equally common) hiJineatus — even 

 though, unfortunately, I have but a single example of it (taken by 

 myself in the region of El Monte in Grand Canary) to judge from. 

 The specimen now before me differs from the riparius in being a little 

 smaller and less coarsely punctured, in its prothorax (which is some- 

 what less dilated anteriorly) having the two longitudinal foveas down 

 its disc a trifle more interrupted (or divided into four impressions), in 

 its antennae being appreciably shorter and dai'ker (their extreme base 

 only being very slightly diluted in hue), and in its legs being a shade 

 less rufescent — all of which points, it will be perceived, are the very 

 ones which are supposed to separate the hilineatus from the riparias. 

 It occurs also, though sparingly, in Madeira. 



923. TrogophloBus exiguus. 

 T. hilineato minor et angustior ; oculis minoribus ; prothorace paulo 

 minus cordate (ad latera sensim magis asqualiter rotundato), foveis 

 dorsalibus subobsoletis ; an tennis vix brevioribus.— Long. corp. lin. 

 vix 1. 



Trogophlceus exiguus?, Erich., Kiif. der Mark Brand. G04 (1839). 

 ?, Id., Gen. et Sjycc. Staph. 809 (1839). 



Habitat Canariam Grandem, semel repertus. 



It is with doubt that I refer this TrogopJilceus to the European T. 

 exiguus ; but as I have only a single example to judge from, which 

 certainly is not identical with any of the other species here enume- 

 rated, I think it better to assign it provisionally to some acknowledged 

 member of the genus to treating it as new on insufficient evidence. 

 It differs from all the preceding Trogophlcei in being considerably 

 smaller and narrower (though it is not quite so minute as either of 

 the following ones), in its eyes being less developed, and in its pro- 

 thorax (which has the dorsal foveas obscui-ely expressed) being a trifle 

 less cordate (or less narrowed behind) — and, therefore, somewhat 

 more regularly rounded at the sides. The only example which I have 

 seen was captured by myself at Teror, in Grand Canary, during the 

 spring of 1858. 



