CUECULIONID^. 255 



more decidedly pronounced phases, of the many just separable ones 

 (inter se) which I have lately examined. Indeed even in its most 

 marked aspect the P. affinis seemed to differ, from the typical lau- 

 rineus, merely in being on the average a trifle smaller, with its 

 elytra perhaps somewhat more convex (or less straightened at the 

 sides) and less deeply sculptured ; and I should not have hesitated 

 therefore to regard it as a variety, had not its attachment to the 

 Euphorbias seemed to me to imply a distinction of real importance. 

 But if the latter peculiarity in its mode of life does not obtain uni- 

 versally, I think that the affinis should no longer be treated as 

 separate from the laurineus*. 



If therefore my conclusion, just arrived at, be correct, the present 

 Phlceopliagus may be said to attach itself to many kinds of trees and 

 (even) shrubs, but to be most partial to the native Laurels of inter- 

 mediate altitudes, and to be tolerably abundant in Teneriffe, Gomera, 

 Palma, and Hierro. 



712. Phlceophagus simplicipes. 



Phlceophagus simplicipes, WolL, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. v. 374 (1861). 

 , Id., Cat. Can. Col 272 (1864). 



Habitat Canarienses (Ten.), lignum Fid antiquum aridum praecipue 

 in inferioribus erodens. 



Found hitherto only in Teneriffe, where it would seem to have 

 a lower range than the P. lawrineus being attached (so far as has 

 yet been observed) to the dead wood of old fig-trees, in cultivated 

 spots of a low elevation. 



713. Phlceophagus piceus. 



Phlceophagus piceus, Woll, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. v. 374 (1861). 

 , Id., Cat. Can. Col. 273 (1864). 



Habitat Canarienses (Lanz., Fuert., Can.}, arbores antiquas Fid ple- 

 rumque in intermediis colens. 



* The question of the specific claims of certain closely allied forms is now and 

 then so difficult of solution that we are compelled to leave it in partial doubt. 

 Thus, although I imagine that the above conclusion is correct, I still cannot 

 feel quite satisfied that I may not have overlooked some character which would 

 perhaps yet prove the affinis to be (as I originally supposed) distinct from the 

 laurineus. I will therefore merely add that if this should be the case, the specific 

 titles will of course have to remain as hitherto. But if, on the contrary, my 

 present explanation is the right one, we may then (ignoring all subsidiary 

 modifications) regard the P. laurineus as tending to assume two slightly different 

 states namely, the typical one (abundant in the laurel-districts of intermediate 

 altitudes), and the " var. /3. affinis," which descends to a lower elevation and 

 attaches itself indiscriminately to various kinds of trees and shrubs. 



