80 MR. NEWPORT'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENUS ANTHOPHORABIA. 
that, with the insect before us, we are now enabled to demonstrate that this little creature 
really does possess the eyes stated*. It is but just, however, to mention, that with regard 
to some other details of less importance, my former description admits of revision ; but 
any occasion for this, although asserted, could only have been. guessed at as vaguely as 
with regard to the eyes, by those who have never seen my insect. Thus I now find that 
the club of the antenna, in both sexes, is formed of a plurality of closely-united immovable 
segments, instead of being but a single joint; a circumstance which affects the declared 
number of parts of which the antenna is composed ; and the possibility of which I have 
elsewhere admitted. Further, the number of joints in the tarsi may either be regarded 
as five, as I have described them, if, as anatomists, we consider as a distinct joint the pad- 
like terminal portion of the foot ; or as four only, if this part be discarded, and the number 
be computed in the way usual with entomologists. . 
With regard to the supposed identity } of Anthophorabia with the insect mentioned in my 
paper of the 20th March, 1849, p. 64, on the Chalcidide, and which had been named Me- 
littobia, but which, up to that period, had not been described §, there cannot be much diffi- 
culty in arriving at a conclusion in the negative; if the description in the accounts given by 
the entomologist who has since repeatedly characterized the latter insect be correct. Thus 
the male of Anthophorabia has stemmatous eyes, while that of Melittobia is described as 
having-* eyes and stemmata wanting ||,” or as ** omnino cecus§,” or “ ceecus**.” And 
again, the male of Anthophorabia has the middle joint of the antennæ “ large and globose” 
or subangulated,: while that of Melittobia was first stated to have ** 2nd and 3rd joints 
small,.nearly equal, 4th, 5th and 6th very small and subannulosett," and afterwards these 
characters were revised by the omission of all reference to the second and third joints, the 
statement being simply “ articulis 4to, 5to et 6to minimis}}.” So that, presuming these 
several descriptions to express the fact, the question must be looked upon as decided. 
- Thus much then with regard to the identity of the genus Anthophorabia. In respect 
of the species there appears to be even less difficulty, Anthophorabia retusa being described 
both generically and specifically in my former paper, while no specific characters whatever 
have even as yet been published of Melittobia Audouinii. | 
I now propose to revise the generic description of Anthophorabia in the following 
manner :— : 
Gen. ANTHOPHORABIA, Newp. 
Fem. Caput latitudine thoracis. Antenne 9-articulatæ, pilose; articulo 3tio ad 6tum subæqualibus ; 
reliquis clavam solidam ovalem efformantibus. Thorax abdomenque zequales. Tarsi (4-?) 5-articulati 
' im utroque sexu; articulo 5to minimo pulvillo simili, ferè obsoleto. | 
* Page 63. T Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. August 1849, p. 123. 1 Proc. Linn. Soc. vol. ii. p. 37. 
$ See Mr. Westwood's * Introduction," &e., vol. i. p. 18. “The Species has not yet been described.” Also, 
Trans. Ent. Soe. vol. v. part 3, 1848 (Proceedings), p. xviii. | Gardeners’ Chronicle, May 12, 1849, p. 295. 
“| Transactions of the Entomological Society, vol. v. part 7, p. lxv. 1849. 
++ re of the Linnean Society for May 1, 1849, vol. ii. p. 37. 
+t eners peurs ubi suprà. ff Trans. Ent. Soc. and Proc. Linn. Soc. ubi supra. 
