112 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



9. Pamexis contaminatus Burm. 



McLachlan (Review Myrmel. de Rambur) notes for this species that 

 there exists an error in my Synopsis, as the M. cojitaniinaius Burm. is a 

 North American species. But he has overlooked that in my Synopsis, p. 

 433, is quoted M. contaminatus Burm., a species only named Vol. ii., p. 

 995, but the differences stated from M. irroratus from S. Carolina. This 

 species belongs to Macronemurus, Synopsis, p. 424. The type is before 

 me. Besides, Synops., p. 433, quotes M. contaminatus Burm., coll. 

 IVinthcm, said to be Pamexis containinatus ; Synops., p. 457, it is quoted 

 with this name and the locality, Orange River. In the introduction of 

 the Synopsis, p. 370, is stated: "Sometimes collection-names of unde- 

 scribed species are quoted, soon to be published, or for another reason." 

 The publication was prevented by my going to America a few months 

 later. The species, of which the type with the name in Burmeister's 

 hand-writing is before me, belongs to a genus so far distant from the N. 

 American species, that it seemed to be not inconvenient to retain Bur- 

 meister's name, though he had in his publication not even mentioned it, 

 as is stated by the words [from Winthem's collection]. Now Pamexis con- 

 taminatus is from the collection of Drege, and as his insects were sold to 

 many museums and collections, I believed that Burmeister's name would 

 be found in other collections, and did retain it for this reason. Pamexis 

 contavii?iatus is identical with the type of Rambur's P. pardalijms. This 

 identity was only recognized by my study of the type after the publication 

 of my Synopsis, in which P. pa?-dalinus Rbr. is quoted with P. parda- 

 linus Br. As the description of Rambur is sufficient, and the identity 

 with Burmeister's species is beyond doubt, I believe that the name P. con- 

 taminatus can be accepted, instead of coining a new name for it, and 

 therefore I propose to name it P. contaminatus. 



10. Pamexis luteus Thunbg. 



The figure and the description of this species (perhaps the type is still 

 in existence, but since it was nearly fifty years ago that I saw Thunberg's 

 collection, I would not state more) belong to M. venosics Burm., which 

 after a careful study subsequent to the publication of my Synopsis, I find 

 is identical with M. conspttrcatus Burm.j both types in the Winthem col- 

 lection. Rambur's species, after the study of the type, I find is the same 

 with M. ve?tosus Burm, 



