150 BRITISH BEES. 



and certainly are not equivalents. The whole method is 

 very perplexing ; for, to cite an insect for the purpose of 

 making a communication, it would have to be preceded 

 by its whole array of subdivisions. Thus Meyachile Wil- 

 lughbiella, which is now so compendiously noticed by 

 the binomial system, would have to be quoted as Apis 

 * * c, 2, a, IVillughkidla, and so with the rest. 



Although I have strongly applauded the ' Monographia 

 Apum Auglise/ as an excellent treatise wherever I have 

 had an opportunity, the praise is to be applied to the 

 correct care with which both the family descriptions and 

 the specific descriptions are elaborated; whilst Mr. 

 Kirby's timidity in fearing to depart from the course of 

 his masters, Liunseus and JFabricius, by establishing a 

 multitude t of genera unrecognized by their authority, 

 although every one of his families is pertinently a well- 

 constituted genus, is much to be deplored. He has thus 

 lost the fame of naming the offspring, of which, although 

 legitimately the parent, he was not the sponsor. But 

 lie has won the higher renown, as I have elsewhere 

 remarked, of his work being a canon of entomological 

 perfection. 



Notwithstanding that this very elaborate, and, to 

 some extent, artificial method is based upon a plurality 

 of characters, and apparently upon such as most readily 

 presented themselves to substantiate the feasibility of 

 subdivision indicated by habit, it is very remarkable in 

 having brought the series into more satisfactory sequence 

 than that presented by Latreille and his modifiers. 

 Panurgus here holds its permanent post as the connect- 

 ing link between the Apidce and Andrenidae, pointed out 

 by nature in its close resemblance to Dasypoda. But 

 this genus, however, establishes for itself a stronger 



