96 MR. NEWPORT’S FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON 
instance it was shrivelled up and lay at the larger end of the cell. In a fourth cell, which 
I took home with me almost entire, there were eighteen larve of Monodontomerus, and 
the remains of a nymph of Anthophora. In this cell the parasites were scarcely more 
than one-half grown, and the remains of the nymph were very complete. The head, limbs, 
and parts of the mouth were still uninjured, but the thorax and abdomen were nearly 
emptied. The parasites had pierced the body in both these regions, and were ranged on 
each side of it. This specimen therefore confirmed Mr. Smith’s statement*, that the 
Monodontomeri feed on the nymph of the bee, as I had previously shown that they feed 
on the larva. It also afforded the fullest confirmation of my original opinion,—that these 
parasites are external feeders,—a view to which I was led,—not, as erroneously stated by 
Mr. Westwood, in the printed Proceedings of the Society, from the simple fact of my 
having found that the bodies of these parasites have an armature of hairs; but, as ex- 
plicitly stated in my papert, as read to this Society, because I have never yet found hairs 
on the bodies of internal feeding parasites. External feeders, nevertheless, may be deficient 
of this armature, as in the instance of Eulophus Nemati cited by this observer. 
As the whole of the tegumentary portion of the body of the nymph of Anthophora, 
obtained by myself, like that of the larva, remained in the cell, although partially 
'shrivelled up, there seems to have been some error also, in part of Mr. Smith's observa- - 
tions, as given in the following words$: “ When first observed the pupa of the bee was 
about one-third consumed, and at last not a vestige of it remained ; all that the cell 
contained, besides the larvæ, being a small portion of yellow dust, or small granules." 
I cannot help regarding this statement as having originated in oversight or mistake, as in 
every cell which I have examined the tegumentary remains of the destroyed bee-larva 
have invariably been present; while in neither of the many cells which I opened very 
carefully at the moment of finding them in their natural haunts, nor in the four which I 
preserved for still closer examination at home, could I detect any “yellow dust or,gra- 
nules.” There were only the parasites and the more or less dried-up tegumentary remains 
of the destroyed insect. Neither was there any “yellow dust or granules" in the cell - 
with the nymph of Anthophora. All which this contained were the parasites and the 
remains of the nymph; together with the larva skin it had thrown off on assuming this 
condition ; while the larger end of the cell was coated with a perfectly smooth layer of 
ejecta; a coating which, as I formerly stated, it always gains after the larva has ceased 
to feed, and before it changes to a nymph. I mention these circumstances the more par- 
ticularly, because, as Mr. Smith’s remarks on Monodontomerus were communicated to the 
Linnean Society in correction of mine on this insect, previously read, and as the abstract 
of that paper has since been published in the « Proceedings,” it is incumbent on me to 
— his statements with care, and to show in what we agree or differ. In his com- 
munication to the Society, he states that he obtained the larve of this insect “in the 
summer of 1848|,” and also remarks:—“I then made a drawing of the larva of the 
rg I enclose.” On this drawing is written the following confirmatory note :— 
ound feeding on the pupa of Anthophora retusa, July 1848.” The following 
* Proceedings, vol. ii. p. 29, April 3, 1849. t May 1, 1849, vol. ii. p. 37. 
i i . i. . 6 LE 
$ Proceedings, vol. ii. P- 29, April 3, 1849, t Transactions, vol. xxi. p. 67 
| Loc. cit. p. 29; also Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. August 1849, p. 124. 
