160 [July. 



examples. iV. gnttidata Schenck was taken at Hampstead and mixed 

 with oclirosfoma K. As is well known, the same locality was a noted 

 one for A. cingulata, the host ; so much so, that Shuckard, who col- 

 lected there frequently, makes the remarkable statement that this 

 Andrena is "perhaps the commonest " of the whole genus ! 



Of iV". argentata H.-Sch., which he described first as atraia and 

 subsequentl}'' considered a var. of germanica Sm. (^ferruginata K.), 

 Smith possessed only two or three examples, and of N. conjungens 

 none at all. Indeed, he seems to have very rarely found the host 

 (^A. proxima) of the latter, since his series of it is small and poor. 

 There is a very beautiful hermaphrodite, iV". haccata Sm. {alhogitttata 

 E. S.). The head and its appendages are S on the left, 5 on the 

 right half, the thorax and legs $ , and the abdomen, while appearing 

 5 superficially, at the apex exhibits a mixture of S and $ characters. 



In Coelioxys not many examples are wrongly named, except that 

 acuminaia N^d. Avas not distinguished from elongata Lep., and that two 

 females of it are separated as representing C. mandibularis Nyl. The 

 true mandibularis was not known to Smith, and certainly the mandibles 

 of 2 acuminata do to some extent resemble those of the other, and the 

 two species are really closely allied. 



The collection of Osi/iia is a full one, except for O. parietina Curt., 

 which is wanting altogether, being represented by a series of O. inei-mis 

 Gerst. The so-called O. fucifonnis Latr. (determined for Smith by 

 Nylander) is, of course, nothing but a quite typical piUcornis Sm., a 

 species which the describer should have known well, and jei he does not 

 compare these two at all, but is at pains to show how *■ fuciformis ' 

 differs from xanthome] ana K. By an unfortunate lapsus he diagnosed 

 it as having the median area of the propodeum ' nitida ' when he meant 

 opaca, as the subsequent note shows. 



The single S and 5 of Megacliile ericetorum Lep. (pgrina Sm.) 

 were captured at Wey bridge " at different times," but as both bear the 

 date July 1844, I presume this refers only to the day of the month. 

 The additional localities, Bristol and Southampton, given in the second 

 edition, may possibly have been added b}^ Smith from his having heard 

 that Walcott of Bristol had a specimen and that Pelerin had taken it at 

 Southampton. Walcott's specimen, however, was, I believe, purchased 

 from Pelerin, who gave Southampton as the localit3^ Prosop)is varie- 

 gata, Sphecodes fuscipennis, and Halictus interruptus were some of the 

 other species sold by Pelerin, and, as this Sphecodes at least can hardly 

 have been British, one may susj^ect that there was some mistake as to 



