98 PROCEEDINGS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



Page 673. The proper name for Anoplius LeP. is now 

 Psammochares L,atr., as the latter name has priority. 



Page 675. C. fraterna should read C.fiaternns. 



Page 677. C. (Sp/iex) ichnenmoneum should occur on this 

 page in place of C. ichneumonca. 



Page 678. C. flavofasciata should have H. S. Sm., as 

 author, not simply Sm. 



Page 681. C. interruptulus D. T. applies to an exotic 

 species and should be replaced by C. (Solenitts) interrupt us 

 L,eP.; wherever Lep. occurs LeP. should be substituted; (C. 

 bisexmacitlatiis}=C. sayi Ckll., Professor Cockerell having 

 published a new name for the preoccupied sexmaculatus in 

 February, 1910. 



Page 688. (//. <sruginosus)H. virescens; Ocean City is 

 the type locality of H. marinns; H. dispaiilis is not likely 

 to occur; the determination was questioned in the case of H. 

 auratus, H. humeralis, H. cupreus, and H. suwptusons, but 

 the interrogation point was dropped out; //. illinoisensis 

 should read H. illinoensis; Mr. Crawford vouches for the 

 authenticity of H. humeralis; so this need not be questioned. 



Page 689. (bi color Fabr.) should read (=bicolor Fab. as 

 determined by Rob.). 



Page 690. For .4. hippotes Ckll. read .4. hippotes Rob.; 

 for A. daeckii read A. daeckei; for A. thaspis read A. thaspii; 

 for A. bridetvellii read A. bridezvelli; for ^4. delaivarearum 

 read A. dela-wareorum (this is a MSS. name); for A. mil- 

 ivaukiensis read A. miltvan keen sis. 



Page 692. N. f estiva belongs to the subgenus Xanthidium; 

 N. incerta belongs to the subgenus Centrias; under Triepeolus 

 mercatus it was suggested in the original cards that this might 

 be the same as Jriepeolus cressoni Rob., but no reference was 

 made to Nomada cressoni Rob. 



Page 693. The interrogation point is missing before M. 

 penn sylvan ica . 



Page 697. Coehoxys moesta Cress. Pemberton, Sept. 1 

 (Harbeck) has been dropped out. 



Page 698. Psithrus should read Psithyrus. 



It may be of interest to the uninitiated to know that the 

 manuscript submitted by the writer was in the form of 3 by 5 

 cards. This manuscript was used in making up the manu- 

 script on sheets that were ultimately sent to the printer. The 

 writer had been promised an opportunity to see the manu- 

 script sheets, but this privilege was never granted. This was 

 a most regrettable oversight, as it led to the creeping in of 

 most of the errors above cited and corrected. 



