512 



STAPHYLINID^. 



1412. Stenus Rogeri. 



Stenus providus, Woll [nee ? Erich., 1837], Ins. Mad. 598 (1854). 



Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 196 (1857). 

 Rogeri, Kraatz, Nat. der Ins. Deutsch. ii. 764 (1857). 



Habitat Maderenses (Mad.}, in locis similibus ac praeeedens, sed rarior. 



Found rather sparingly in Madeira proper, in damp places gene- 

 rally, and for the most part at intermediate altitudes. I have hitherto 

 regarded it as identical with the European S. providus, but I am 

 informed by Mr. Rye that it accords better with the Rogeri of Kraatz. 

 The question however is merely one of names, for it is the latter 

 species to which I had myself referred it; only (like most other 

 Coleopterists) I had assumed that "species" to be Erichson'spro- 

 vidus instead of the subsequently described S. Rogeri *. 



1413. Stenus undulatus. 



Stenus undulatus, Woll, Ins. Mad. 599 (1854). 

 } Id., Cat. Mad. Col. 197 (1857). 



Habitat Maderenses (Mad.), ad rupes aquosas, prasertim in lutosis 

 juxta radices Marchantice polymorphce ibidem crescentes, sat 

 rarus. 



A very remarkable Stenus which seems to be peculiar to Madeira 

 proper, where it is found about wet rocks and in the muddy deposits 

 at the edges of the trickling streams and waterfalls (especially 

 amongst the dripping masses of Marchantia polymorpJut) at inter- 

 mediate and lofty altitudes. In the north of the island however, 

 where it principally occurs, it descends likewise to a low elevation. 



b. Tarsi articulo quarto bilobo (sed tamen angusto). 



1414. Stenus seneotinctus. 



Stenus seneotinctus, Woll, Cat. Can. Col 592 (1864). 



Habitat Canarienses (Can., Ten., Gom., Palma, Hierro), in intermediis 

 humidis sylvaticis late diffusus. 



* There would indeed seem to be some little doubt whether the true providus 

 (whatsoever it may be) is unquestionably distinct from the Rogeri ; but as the 

 former is probably identical with the lustrator from the Pyrenees, I should be 

 rather inclined to suspect that the two are not absolutely conspecific. Neverthe- 

 less if it should ultimately be demonstrated that they do not differ, the title of 

 providus (as being the older one) would of course have to be adopted. On the 

 other hand, if further investigation proves them to be really distinct, it is still 

 possible that the Madeiran insect (which recedes from the typical Rogeri in being 

 a trifle larger) may be the true providus, after all, and identical with the Pyrenean 

 species. 



