lyiM 61 



If, then, va!-. f3 of rol/ins'iiunm (5)oj (= pvaxima) was transferred 

 to combinafa (94), and the male types of 93 and 94 transposed, then all 

 the specimens would a*?ree with the descriptions in the " Monographia." 



M. nxdiuscula K. (No. 95) has l)een considered to be dorsata. 

 The type is in very bad condition, and the one hind leg or its fragments 

 are stuck on to the side of the insect with a large mass of gum. When 

 this leg is removed and cleaned the specimen can at once be determined, 

 as being domata, if it be that species. The males under M. albicrus 

 (96) are represented by a (^ fulvicms (so labelled by F. Smith) and a 

 very worn example of the same species unlabelled. The mistakes that 

 have been made in connection with M. runnectens (97) are quite as in- 

 explicable as those that concern Noinada alternafa. The unique type 

 is a ? A. chrysosceles, and a comparison of Kirby's descriptions of 

 his two species will show how closely these agree, except, in small 

 points, due to abrasion of the specimens. Smith, in his 1st Edition, 

 says that A. connedevs "approaches the preceding" {dorsata) and 

 that it occurs at Southend, but there is a blank in his cabinet over the 

 label for this species. In his 2nd Edition, he says the type is in a 

 mutilated state, "and it is therefore very difficult to arrive at any 

 satisfactory opinion respecting it ! " but that it may be a worn variety 

 of dorsata. E. Saunders also gives it as a synonym of dorsata, with a 

 (|uery. If. nihiiicana K. (98) is a ^ of A. dorsata. Smith (as is the 

 case with one or two other obscure species) does not refer to this Kirbyan 

 type in either of his editions on British bees. M. ronvexiuscvta K. 

 is a stylopized A. ivilkella K. (not afzeliella), but /3 is a female of 

 A. dorsata. This var. is not referred to in Kirby's book. Why the 

 name afzeliella has been generally used for 108 I do not know, for, 

 as is well known, fiiscata. (107) is the same species, and it might have 

 stood in our lists as Juscata var. afzeliella ; but now both these must 

 give place to M. ovahda (No. 89). It remains to add that Melitta 

 tricincta K. (109) is not synonymous with the species we call Cilissa 

 leporina, but with C. nietamira, and its specific name must replace the 

 latter. The correct synonymy of a good many of Kirliy's specimens 

 will be found correctly given by F. Smith and E. Saunders, and to 

 these, unless the species are diiiicidt enough to make further confirma- 

 tion advisable, I have not referred. 



One may remark that in Kirl)y's collection there are three described 

 species, which have not again been i-ecorded in this country ,yi'A., Halict iis 

 laeois, Andrena nana, and Sphecodcs srahricoUis (=M.divisaK.part.). 

 There is no reason to suspect the authenticity of any of these insects 



