Mr. Westwood on the Affinities of Clinidium. 227 
‘* tarsuum yariatio secundum sexum, affinitatem cum Genere Cryptophagi 
‘* produnt, sed instrumenta cibaria, et statura corporis deplanata, bene 
** distinguunt.”’ 
Cucujus muticus, Fab., appears to agree with the preceding in the 
formation of its essential organs, although the sides of the thorax are not 
denticulated. In another small British species, (Tab. Supp. xvi. fig. 1.), 
nearly allied to the Cuc. dermestoides, (which Mr. Stephens has named in 
his Catalogue, Cuc. testaceus, Pk., Fab., and Gyll., but which appears 
to me rather to be the Cuc. piceus, Oliv. and Latr. Hist. Nat. 11, 256, 4.) 
the antenne are formed as in Cuc. dermestoides, the labrum is, however, 
much larger than in that species, and semicircular (Ibid. fig. 1, A.), and 
the terminal joint of all the palpi is but very slightly truncate, being al- 
most acute (Ibid. C. and D.), the abium is entire (D.) This species 
(which I received from Mr. Ingpen, who procured it from the decayed 
part of an old elm-tree, in Wiltshire, in the month of December,) al- 
though agreeing with Gyllenhal’s description of the form of the head, 
antenne, and form and striation of the elytra of Cuc. testaceus, appears 
to be too darkly coloured for the description of that species, being 
rufo-castaneous rather than rufo-testaceous, and Gyllenhal says of the 
thorax of Cuc. testaceus, “ sub-quadratus—angulis posticis parum pro- 
‘* minulis,” whereas in my insect, the sides of the thorax are slightly 
denticulated at the base, although agreeing in other respects with Gyllen- 
hal’s description. 
In the breadth of its body and in its more developed labrum, the Cucu-~ 
jus monilis, Fab., Pk., and Gyll., (Cue. bipustulatus, Hellw., Latr., Pz., 
Cuc. bimaculatus, Oliv., Latr.,) appears to recede from the typical form of 
the genus. In the specimens which I have seen of this insect, the antenne 
have the last three joints thickened ; they therefore appear to be the var. a. 
of this species, described by Gyllenhal ; but I very much question whe- 
ther they are, as he supposes, males, since, notwithstanding its greater 
size, I should be induced to regard his var. b, ‘ antennis filiformibus, di- 
** midio corpore longioribus—articulis ultimis non crassioribus, sed elon- 
** gatis cylindricis,’’ as the male of the species. 
In the Exotic Cabinet of the British Museum, are several specimens of 
a small pale testaceous species, with the thorax subquadrate, named by 
Dr. Leach, “ Cucujus monilis, H. testaceus, Pk.’ This is a British spe- 
Pp 2 
