1^1 ■•! 231 



are to be found not onl}^ under tins name, but also confused "with 

 the species of the very different subgenus Crossoceriis. Females of 

 C. lituratus Panz., the S of which Avas described as vestitus by 

 Smith, are to be found in his series of ceplialotes Panz. and 

 art/lurgiis Shuck. (^= chrysostoyna Lep.). Of more interest is the pair 

 of the remarkable C. clypeatvs L. taken at Weybridge, a species which, 

 like several others in the Kirby and Smith collections, awaits rediscovery. 



Of several local species, e. g. C. jJubescens Shuck., loaJkeri Shuck. 

 (^= ajjhidiim Lep.), Cftjjifosus Shuck., anxiiis Wesm. { = exiguus Sh.), 

 gonager Lep. (^ = amhiguKs Dahlb., and by a lapsus labelled exiguus 

 Dahlb.), and sciiteUatus Schev. { = pferofiis F.), Smith had only one 

 or at most three examples, thovigh most of these are to be obtained in 

 numbers at times. Two of his series of the common Oxyhelus uniglu- 

 mis L. were specially labelled " Deal," no doubt as being considered 

 aberrant, since the others are unlabelled. These two are O. mandihularis 

 Dahlb., while the unique Devonshire example of O. nigripes Ohv. needs 

 comparing with authentic Continental examples of that species, since 

 there appears to be considerable doubt as to the correctness of the names 

 attached to many of the European species one finds in collections. The 

 type of Ceratopliorus anthracinus Sm. appears in every way identical 

 with those others named C. morio F., and the naming in Passaloecus 

 and Diodonfus is not always correct. There are three old specimens of 

 Mimesa atra F. (without locality labels), and a very fine series of Phi- 

 lanthus from the Isle of Wight. The unique example named Cerceris 

 emarginata, taken at Kingsdown, is of some interest. Saunders remarks 

 (o/). cif. p. 119) that it is " undoubtedly referable to this species," which, 

 he says, has "a deeply striate basal area of the propodeiun." He appa- 

 rently quite overlooked the fact that Smith's specimen has this area 

 almost smooth and very similar to that of C. ornata. However, the 

 colom-, sculpture, etc., are so different from that of the latter, that it 

 really appears to be an aben-ation of emarginata. 



As to the Ants, of which the collection is lai-ge, I need only remark 

 that of the two examples labelled " gogaies,'''' one is from Bournemouth, 

 the other from the Isle of Wight, and that the early records of Ponera 

 contracta are very probably mostly erroneous. 1 think the earliest 

 correctly named examples in Smith's collection are a pair of workers 

 from Mickleham, collected, I believe, by Dr. Sharp, those taken before 

 this {^e.g. in St. James's Park) being all punctatissima, as also is a $ 

 labelled " Manchester." 



Park Hill House, Paigntou. 

 September 1917. 



