1000.1 173 



recently captured. The smaller and less conspicuous genera of bees 

 he apparently paid comparatively little attention to ; Prosopis and 

 Halicfus, for instance, have but few varieties represented. The series 

 of species of Andrena, on the other hand, is nearly perfect, but it is clear 

 that Walcott excelled as a collector pure and sim])le, for even in the 

 case of this, which one may well suppose to have been his favourite 

 genus, the species were much confused. Most of the numerous 

 species added to our lists since the time of Smith's latest work were 

 contained in the collection, but mixed with other species, e g.^ Odynerus 

 reniformis^ Sphecodes spiiiulosus and S. ruhicundus amongst the finer 

 species, and others which are no doubt less rare but easily overlooked, 

 such as Andrena amhigua, A. niveata, A. lapponica, several Sphecodes^ 

 Pompilus and Salius, &c., &c. A female of Megachile versicolor^ 

 Smith, was rightly determined and one or two other examples were 

 included with M. centuncularis. A fine ? of ilf. j:>yrm«. Smith, nee. 

 Lep., bears a label indicating that it was captured by Pelerin in the 

 New Forest, and it is quite probable that two of the localities cited 

 by Smith, namely, Bristol and Southampton, were based on this 

 specimen. Of Osmia inermis there is a series of examples in splendid 

 condition, and amongst these I found a fine fresh-looking ? of 

 O. parietina, Curt. Stelis octo-macuJafa, Smith is represented by five 

 specimens only, a sixth example placed with these being a small 

 S. pliceoptera, Kir. From this fact it would seem that this little bee 

 was by no means common at Bristol, and this accords with my own 

 experience in Suffolk, where last year I was only able to take five 

 specimens, although its host {Osmia leucomelana) was very abundaiit. 

 It is perhaps worthy of note that there is a single specimen of the 

 variety of Andrena nitida, which has the scopse and anal fimbria 

 fulvous, but it is not in very good condition. It shows .no trace of 

 stylopization, which Saunders suggests may be the cause of this 

 variation. 



The fossorial Hymenoptera were much more correctly determined 

 than the bees, so much so that I suspect they had been examined by 

 Shuckard at some time, the PompiJidce only being a good deal mixed up. 

 The Eiimenidce, on the other hand, were in great confusion, but 

 all the species of Odynerus were represented, exce])ting only 0. hasalis^ 

 Sm. Under the names, 0. S-marginaftis and O. pictiis, were a series 

 of examples of a species new to our list, O. tomentosus, Thom. It 

 belongs to the subgenus Odynerus (proprie dictus) of de Saussure, for 

 which section he had previously used the pre-occupied name, Leionotus. 

 Odynerus tomentosiis is at once distinguished from any other of our 



