April, 1917.] / r^ f, -iCWl \ 73 



localities he cites, but thei-e ar^ number of nnname^^eii from Deal, 

 together with the parasitic Taclnlii^T^hrai^l^r^^jlie nests. 



The collection of Pmsopis is a poor one. The species were too 

 difHcult for Smith' and probably not attractive for that reason. Under 

 P. pHiictulafxssvma Smith, there are half-a-dozen specimens, but only 

 one of these, a ? , is correct. The others are all J covfnm Nyl. In 

 his 1st edition, he says it was only once met with, at Birch Wood, Kent, 

 and in his 2ud he gives no locality. The ? referred to is labelled "Ham." 

 (Hampstead). It is one of the oldest bees in the collection, as is 

 proved by the pin used. The examples of P. rupestris Sm. from Sid- 

 mouth, ai-e quite ordinary ones of P. co7nmunis Nyl. One would have 

 l)een at a loss to know why these were ever described as new had one 

 not examined the series of P. cnmvnoris and found that most of the 

 females assigned to this really belong to P. confvm. Smith probably 

 compared his Sid mouth captures with some of these, and finding 

 them different concluded that they were new. It may be remarked 

 that in his works on bees, it is chiefly on the $ characters that 

 Smith bases his species, always describing this sex first and usually 

 at greater length. Of P. varij.es Sm. there are only the ^ and $ 

 types (labelled as such) , and one other (^ ■ No doubt these are the 

 specimens " bred from bramble and rose sticks sent from Bristol." 

 Only the ^ type belongs to P. picfipe^ Nyl. (the name by which we 

 know varipes Sm.), the ? type and the other ^ are quite remai'kable 

 aberrations of P. hyalinata Sm., of very small size and abnormal in 

 colour, the J' with the facial markings much diminished, the $ with 

 these increased. In a copy of Smith's 2nd edition, formerly belonging 

 to Saunders, I find written in pencil against the description " ? = 

 hyalhiatns small?" " ,^ = pictipes Nyl."^ — which is quite correct. 

 These notes in pencil appear to have been made when Saunders was 

 working on his "Synopsis," as. some of them are exactly reproduced 

 therein. The specimen of P. variegata, "purchased from Mr. Pelerin," 

 and said to have been caught in "the neighl)Ourhood of Bideford," is 

 duly labelled, but the sjiecies requires confirmation as British. 



In Spliecodes the long series of gibbns L. and suhpiadrafKs Sin. 

 are almost entirely correct, but rufesrens Fourcr. was a mixture of 

 large or medium-sized species, which could not be placed in the other 

 two. It contained one ,^ spiuuJosiis von Hag., several rvhicnndus 

 von Hag., and jdfifrons Thoms. ; both sexes also of i^ltni/i>i Wesin., and 

 the (^ of ferruginatuft Sch. S. pellucidus Sm., sunk by himself as a 

 var. of rufescens, is pilifrons Thoms., and has the priority. Under 



