!«!'«.] 123 



C. hicolor. — Even before I had seeu Smith's two examples in Dr. 

 Mason's collection I felt sure from his account that Marshall's Catalogue 

 was wrong in identifying this species with osvilce, Thoms., and that it 

 would prove to be rather the hirsuta of Grerstsecker. Having now ex- 

 amined the actual insects I find my expectation confirmed. The black 

 liairs at the apex of the abdomen are distinctly visible in both speci- 

 mens ; still, to make assurance doubly sure, I thought it prudent to 

 submit one of them to M. du Buysson, and can now state on his 

 authority that it is hirsuta, Grerst. The blcolor of Dahlbom was 

 evidently a mixed species, including both osmice, Thoms., and hirsuta, 

 Gerst. (A specimen of the latter at Munich is labelled by Dahlbom 

 ''hicolor,'' see "Species," vi, p. 327). The name hicolor was pre- 

 occupied, having been given by Lepelletier to an insect now recognised 

 as a variety of succincta. In Smith's synonymy hicolor, Dhb., is 

 identified with austriaca, Zett., but the latter {teste Mocsary) is really 

 pusfulosa, Ab. It is curious that Smith should have increased the 

 confusion about our species by saying that the radial cell is " open at 

 the apex." It is not so in either of his specimens. There is no 

 example of C. osmice. Thorns., among Smith's insects ; but I have found 

 one specimen of it, mixed with ignita and pustulosa, in another part 

 of Dr. Mason's collection. It belonged formerly to the late Sir S. S. 

 Saunders, and bears a ticket in his hand signifying apparently that he 

 received it from Mr. Edward Saunders. The latter tells me that he 

 has no recollection of the insect in question, but feels convinced that 

 if it came from him it must have been taken in England. I hope, 

 therefore, that I am justified in including it in our list. This insect, 

 also, I have submitted to M. du Buysson, and he returns it as a large 

 specimen of osmice, Thoms. 



C. neglecfa.— This insect was first discovered by Shuckard, whose 

 name for it has been universally adopted ; and it is interesting as the 

 only certainly British Chrysid, except Buddii, which, when first found, 

 was an addition to the general European list. It is common abroad, 

 and not rare in England. I have only found it among the bui-rows of 

 Odyneriis spinipes, on which, as Smith records, it is parasitic. 



Euchrceus qnadrafus.— The Museum has a (^ of U. purpuratus, 

 Fab., under the above name. Smith records it as very doubtfully 

 British, and it is really almost inconceivable that this Mediterranean 

 species should occur in our country, though I have taken it at Sicrre 

 in Switzerland, which is probably about the limit of its distribution 

 in our direction. Probably it is an Italian capture of Dr. Leach's. 



