THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 9 



THK BKE GENUS EMPHOR IN SOUTH AMERICA. 



BY C. SCHROTTKY, 

 Pto. Bertoni, Paraguay. 



Mr. J. Vachal (Rev. Ent. Caen., Vol. XXVIII, p. 23, 24) eites 3 species of 

 Eniphor from Argentina: 1, E. fructifer (Holmbg.); 2, E. tricolor (Friese), and 

 3. E. bifax Vach . The first is at the same time the type of the genus TeleiUemnesta 

 Holmbg., and the second was described as an Ancyloscelis. Vachal himself 

 regards Eniphor as a subgenus of Ancyloscelis; but this standpoint is not to be 

 discussed here. Changing his term "subgenus" into "genus," the question is 

 left open whether he was correct in synonymizing Teleutemfiesta with Emphor, 

 or not. As I had the occasion to see some specimens of a representative of this 

 group in the collection of Mr. A. de Winkelried, Bertoni, I think it useful to give 

 a detailed description of them as well as some remarks on the group as a whole. 

 For. if Mr. Vachal's views are correct, the genus would have a singular distrib- 

 ution; a few species in Argentina and one in the Eastern United States. The 

 specimens mentioned above came from Santa Fe, Argentina, and cannot be 

 referred to any of the three species cited by Vachal. There is a description of 

 Ptilothrix tricolor (Friese) given by Brethes* (Anal. Mus. Buenos Aires, Vol. 

 XX, pi. 10, p. 295), based apparently on the same insect as the Santa Fe bees, 

 but, as it seems, not on that described by Friese as Ancyloscelis tricolor. There 

 are too many differences between the description of the latter and the Santa 

 Fe bees, so these are treated here as a new species: Emphor opuntice. Sureh" 

 the\- are at least congeneric and with the same habits as tricolor. Mr. A. C. 

 Jensen Haarup states that tricolor "is rarer than the preceding" — Ancyloscelis 

 nigerrima — ^"and similarly a cactus- insect" (Flora og Fauna, 1908, p. 103). 

 According to Mr. Joergensen who observed both tricolor and nigerrima at 

 Mendoza, Argentina, they are one and the same species; the few red hairs on 

 the segments of tricolor are soon lost or decoloured and thus the insect becomes 

 nigerrima. There are no plastic differences between them (Zool. Jahrb., Vol. 

 XXIX, 1912, Abt. f. Syst. p. 157). 



Joergensen says that the bee provides its nest with a tube above the soil, a 

 beha\iour not observed of any other bee from Mendoza. Among the flowers 

 visited he likewise cites an Opuntia (1. c). The North American species, E. 

 bomhiformis (Cress.), on the contrary, was found on flowers of Ipomcea and 

 Hibiscus, as far as I know. 



The species described by E. L. Holmbergas Telentemnesta friictifera is surely 



also congeneric, although there seem to exist slight differences in the venation 



of the wings. Holmberg says that the second cubital cell is smaller than the 



first or third, with the first recurrent nervure a trifle behind its middle. Vachal 



states that the second cubital cell is almost as large as the first or third, with 



the first recurrent nerxure between its middle and apex, nearer to its middle, 



however. In opuntice the second cubital cell is scarcely half the length of the 



first and not more than 3^ of the third; the first recurrent nervure enters in the 



fem.ale almost in the middle of the cell, in the male between middle and apex. 



In bomhiformis finally, the second cubital cell is described as about ^3 the length 



*Brethes considers Emphor and part of Teleutemnesta as synonyms of Ptilothrix Sm. 

 Bull. See. Ent. France, 1910, p. 212). They are certainly related but not identical if the figures 



given by F. Smith arc correct. 



January. 1920 



