OF WASHINGTON. 21 



specimen of a new species which seemed in many respects very 

 near Neolarra, but which differed in having but one submar 

 ginal cell and two discoidals. I at once communicated the news 

 of these two captures to Prof. Cockerell. In a reply he advised 

 me to compare Neolarra and Phileremus! Not having the 

 material or time to make the comparison, I had dropped the 

 subject until Prof. Cockerel] sent me specimens of his new Phi 

 leremus verbesince, which was then undescribed. I was sur 

 prised to find verbesince strictly congeneric with Neolarra 

 pruinosa, and was greatly astonished to see that both were un 

 mistakably BEES. They have the greatly produced mouth-parts 

 usual to nearly related bees, and the hairs clothing the body are 

 compound and plumose. I immediately wrote Prof. Cockerell 

 again, but before hearing from him, received the copy of Psyche 

 in which he describes Phileremus verbesince, and the form 

 mentioned above with one submarginal cell and two discoidals 

 which he had also found at Las Cruces as a new genus and 

 species, Phileremulus vigilans. He also describes an addi 

 tional species of the same genus as Phileremulus nana. In his 

 reply Prof. Cockerell states that he had communicated to Mr. 

 Fox his suspicions regarding the affinities of Neolarra and 

 Phileremus and had received the assurance that Neolarra was 

 not a bee. But, strange to say, Phileremulus which in general 

 appearance is the exact counterpart of Neolarra Mr. Fox ad 

 mits is a bee, and a new genus, and stranger still, advises that 

 verbesince, which is straight Neolarra, be placed in Philere 

 mulus as a section or subgenus. 



Considering the history of Neolarra, such a result (viz : 

 Neolarra a bee) seemed so entirely improbable, that I con 

 cluded there must have been an error in the determination of my 

 specimens. At this juncture, however, Mr. Ashmead most 

 kindly loaned me the type. It is a very poor specimen, the body 

 almost entirely denuded, the wings and legs on one side gone, 

 those on the other side in poor condition, and the mouth-parts 

 wholly retracted. It enabled me, however, to definitely deter 

 mine my specimens as Neolarra pruinosa. It is scarcely to be 

 wondered that Messrs. Fox and Ashmead found Neolarra a 

 most difficult form to place among the Fossores. 



But Neolarra is not Phileremus, and the name will have to 

 be retained, though a most unfortunate misnomer. These allied 

 genera may be distinguished as follows : 



a. Anterior wings with one submarginal cell and two discoidals; margi- 



nal'cell scarcely exceeding stigma Phileremulus. 



aa. Anterior wings with two submarginal cells and three discoidals. 



b. Second submarginal cell much higher than broad and receiv- 



