76 [April, 



as March, with its double-hrooded ally, fulvicrns. Nor have I eA-^er 

 found the latter stylopized, though it has been recorded, as thus 

 affected, by Morley. Of fasciata, I have no other record of stylopiza- 

 tiou. Smith toolc a stylopized ^ oi'ui. hncephala St., but left this 

 unnamed. 



A. chjpeata Sm. is, as Saunders had determined from the descrip- 

 tion, an entirely typical ^ yraecox Scop., although iu both editions 

 Smith remarks that it is "a very distinct and marked species, and 

 easily recognised." As he had (J (J of praecox correctly determined 

 (under Kirby's name smiihella), and also females of the same from 

 Scotland, whence came the type of dypeata, this error is incom- 

 prehensible. 



The other Andrenae worthy of note are the original examples of 

 A. ])olita Sm., and a beautiful hermaphrodite of A. nitida Fourcr., 

 female on the left side, male on the right. The remarkable aberration 

 mentioned by Saunders under A. bimacidata (Hym. Acul. p. 236), 

 which he says suggests a cross between this species and filipes F., and 

 which Smith described as praetexta, is a variety of filipes correspond- 

 ing to the var. consimilis Sm. of nitida. 



(To he continued. ) 



CRYPTOCEPHALUS BIPUNCTATUS L., AND C. BIGUTTATUS SCOP. 

 ( = BIPUSTULATUS ¥.). 

 BY W. E. SHARP, F.E.S. 



In the great genus CryptocejdiaJvs Geoffr., of which (setisu lato) 

 some hundred-and-sixty species are known as European, not more than 

 eighteen or nineteen have been discovered in these islands. Of the 

 two which form the subject of the present note neither can be con- 

 sidered freqixeut or widely distributed, and one (C. higiittatus) is un- 

 doubtedly rare. Moreover, as a doubt has been expi-essed by more than 

 one author as to their specific distinctness, I have thought it Veil, 

 besides recording the captixres of the rarer, to add a few words on the 

 characters which appear to me to establish the specific validity of each 

 of them. 



Thus Weise, although he clearly points out the differences which 

 sepai-ate C. higuttatus from C. hipmictahis, and in fact refers to a dis- 

 parity between their aedeagi, yet remarks (Ins. Deutschl.,Vol. VI, p. 168) : 

 " In later date, Marseul divided it (higuttatus) by form and punctua- 

 tion from hij-iuuctai'us, but these differences by themselves alone, in 



