176 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



FURTHER NOTES ON SECTIONS OF AUGOCHLORA. 



BY CHARLES ROBERTSON, CARLINVILLE, ILLINOIS. 



Since my note on the Mexican bees of the genus Augochlora 

 was published I have been informed by Prof. Cockerell that he would 

 not reply in this journal, but probably elsewhere. This conclusion seems 

 to me to be remarkable, but I shall lake this occasion to say what more 

 I have to say on the subject and then leave it. 



When I suggested two sections of Augochlora, in Trans. Am. Ent. 

 Soc. XX., 147, I did not base my conclusion on the hind spurs alone, but 

 because the two sets of species also agreed in other characters. I was 

 too well acquainted with the characters of Halictus to suppose that a 

 valid section of Augochlora could be maintained unless the spurs of a 

 certain form were associated with other characters which indicated 

 affinity. For example, Halictus coriaceus and H. Forbesli form a natural 

 group of the genus and have finely serrate hind spurs. If I remember 

 correctly H. fuscipennis belongs to the same group, but H. parallelus, 

 which also has finely serrate spurs, does not. The sections of 

 Augochlora., as I formed an idea of them at the time I mentioned them, 

 might be defined as follows : 



1. Slender species, having the sides of truncation of metathorax 

 rounded above ; hind spur of $ finely serrate ; ventral segments of $ 

 not metallic, or more or less metallic medially. 



2. More robust species, having sides of truncation sharp ; hind 

 spurs of $ with 4-5 long teeth ; basal ventral segments of $ metallic. 



These characters belong to the species I indicated as coming in 

 these sections, but it does not necessarily follow that other species with 

 the same spur forms belong to either of them. Thus A. splendida, with 

 basal fasciae on second and third abdominal segments, may not belong to 

 my second section. 



That Prof. Cockerell did not know that the peculiar spur forms 

 were secondary sexual characters of the females is shown by his failure to 

 indicate the fact in the table ; by his insisting that A. viridula and A. 

 fervida could not belong to the second group on account of their spurs ; 

 by the use of the terms "ciliate or simple," which I think were taken 

 from the males ; and by his comparison of types through Col. Bingham. 

 Smith's male types were referred to the first group without regard to any 

 except their spur characters, which were of no value. If the types of 

 A. aspasia, A. atirora and A. splendida had been males these species 

 would have been referred to the first so-called subgenus ; in other words, 

 the author could not tell to which one of his own subgenera an 

 Augochlora belonged. He failed to indicate valid characters of any 

 natural group of Augochlora, and, in fact, showed that he had no idea 

 of them. 



