344 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



NOTES ON PHILANTHUS. 



BY S. N. DUNNING, HARTFORD, CONN. 



In the Canadian Entomologist, 1899, p. 293, ff, Mr. Ashmead 

 has divided, fivsi Ap hi/ant hops \n\.o Clypeadon, Patton, Tind Aphilanthops, 

 Patten, and secondly Philanthus into Rpiphilanthns^ Fsettdant/iophi/us, 

 AntJiopJiilus, and Philanthus. 



(i.) 



Mr. Patton describes Clypeadon in Entomological News, 1897, 

 p. 13, as separated from Aphilanthops by its "dorsal valve subquadrate, 

 ventral valve bilobate." A. qnadrinotatus, Ash., 9 > presents both these 

 characters ; A. elsice, Dunn, 5 , the latter, the other forms not at all. The 

 other characters given by Mr. Ashmead are not sufficient to make a new 

 genus. I am therefore forced to conclude that Clypeadon is not valid. 



(ii.) 



Under (4), page 294, above cited, Mr. Ashmead divides Philanthus 

 into Philanthus (6) and three new genera (5). While the difference in 

 the eye-emargination exists, it is not true of the division here made. 

 Neither does the division on the venation of the hind wing hold. The 

 one character left is in the punctuation of the abdomen. This is an 

 insufficient foundation for new genera. 



(iii.) 



A consideration of the characters given under (5), page 294, and 

 based on Phil, solivagus $ ^ , P. ventilabris <$ ? , and P. politus $ , 

 gives me the following result : 



(i.) There is no difference whatsoever, in so far as I can detect, be- 

 tween the relative lengths of median and submedian cells on the externo- 

 medial nervure. 



(ii.) The distance on the cubital nervure, between the junction of 

 the 2nd transverso-cubital nervure and the 2nd recurrent nervure, is less 

 in solivagus than in vejitilabris or politus, but that does not change the 

 relative lengths of 2nd and 3rd submarginal (or cubital) cells on the 2nd 

 transverso-cubital nervure (which I take " radius " to mean). 



(iii.) While the abdominal segments (excepting the ist) are less 

 constricted in solivagus than in vejitilabris or politus, nevertheless the 

 constriction is there. 



As regards the Pseudatithophilus and Anthophilus, I find clypeus 

 margined in both species cited as types, that the junction of ist recurrent 

 nervure varies in both species anywhere from the middle to the quarter of 

 the second submarginal cell, and that the one character separating them 

 lies in the last joint of the ^ antennas. These cannot, therefore, be 

 considered valid genera. 



