682 Goleopterological Notices, VII. 



APPENDIX. 



The species described by me under the name Trichochrous ex- 

 iguus (Col. Not. YI, p. 49t) is probably the same as the Listrus 

 ferrugineus of Gorham (Biol. Cent.-Amer., Ill, 2, p. 330). Mr. 

 Gorham is however gravely in error in assigning the species to 

 Listrus, for the spines of the tibi^ are perfectly evident and, be- 

 sides, the absence of " upright pile on the body above " is by no 

 means a distinguishing feature of Listrus, since there is a large 

 division of Trichochrous (Pristoscelis % Gor.), which also has no 

 trace of erect hairs. 



It is probable also that Dasytellus subovalis Csy. (1. c, p. 5*70), 

 is identical with the Listrus impressus of Gorham (1, c, p. 329), 

 although the measurement of Mr. Gorham is too small (1^ mm.) 

 and the generic reference altogether erroneous. It bears no re- 

 semblance to Listrus canescens, which is a purely Californian 

 species not occurring in Mexico. Possibly Mr. Gorham alluded 

 to L. senilis, a uniformly and densely clothed species which un- 

 doubtedly extends its range well into Mexico, but to which he 

 does not seem to refer. 



If the Listrus punctatus of Gorham, is in reality a Listrus the 

 name is preoccupied by Mannerheim, provided also the species of 

 the latter author is a true Listrus. I have seen neither of them 

 and can therefore give no opinion. 



It is probable that the genus Alymeris Csy. (1. c, p. 600) is the 

 same as Melyrodes Gorh. 



The following species was overlooked in my revision of the 

 Melyrinae : — 



Dasytes parvicollis Mann. — Elongatus, subcylindricus, supra nigro-seneus, 

 remote subtilius punctulatus, dense griseo-pubescens, subtus niger, capite 

 minore [laticollis} rotundato, thorace elytris angustiore, snbrotundato, elytris 

 dorso subconvexis. Longit. 1}^ lin. ; Latit. }4. li^- Habitat in California. 

 D. Tscbernikh. 



I cannot give even a doubtful surmise as to the relationship of 

 this species from the description, though it is more probabl}' a 

 Trichochrous than a Dasytes. 



II- 



My attention was recently called to a paper by Mr. Pic, pub- 

 lished in the " Revue Scientifique du Bourbonnais YII," in which 



