t0o2.] 83 



Macropis labiata, Pz., and fulvipes, F. — In Friese's new volume (VI) of 

 " Apidaa Europsjce," the above insects are separated by differences of colour, punc- 

 turafion, etc., but the author expresses some doubt whether they ought really to be 

 considered as distinct species. 



Having examined their J genitalia with this question in view, 1 find a difference 

 which seems to me quite strong enough to be specific. In both, the stipes has a long 

 bilobed apical process or ' ; lacinia," but the outer of the two lobes of this process is 

 shaped very differently in the two species. In fulvipes it lias a simple subtriangular 

 form, with nearly straight, gently converging sides and a rounded apex. But in 

 labiata it is so strongly and abruptly dilated inwards at the apex as to be almost 

 Unciform. The difference is quite apparent with a hand-lens of low power ; as viewed 

 under the compound microscope it is more than apparent — striking ! (The inner 

 lobes differ also somewhat — that in labiata being wider. But this character is by 

 no means so noticeable as that given above, so I do not dwell upon it). 



The species are undoubtedly very closely allied ; but I think we cannot do 

 wrong to keep them apart, according to our present ideas as to what constitutes a 

 species. 



My specimens of Macropis are mostly English or Swiss. The English ones are 

 all labiata ; the Swiss comprise both species — labiata from Sierre, and fulvipes from 

 the Bois des Freres, near Geneva. Both occurred on Lysimachia, and I never 

 thought I had more than one species in my collection, till I tested it by Friese's 

 synoptic tables in the new volume. — E. 1). Mouice, Brunswick, Woking : 

 February, 1902. 



Hedychrum rutilans, Dhb.,and Hedychrum fervidum, Smith, nee F. — Professor 

 Poulton has lately been good enough to send me for examination the whole of the 

 British Chrysids in the "Hope" (Oxford) Collection. I was rather disappointed 

 to find that it contained nothing new to our British List ; but there was one insect 

 which, had I seen it a few months earlier, would have been so. 



This was a $ of Hedychrum rutilans, Dhb., tbe species of which I recorded the 

 first British capture known to me (at Lyndhurst, by Miss Ethel Chawner), in the 

 Eut. Mo. Mag. of last October (1901). 



The insect bore two old labels, one naming it " Hedychrum fervidum," the 

 other giving as locality and captor " Wandsworth, W. S. (sic) Saunders." This 

 was probably due to a slip of the pen, W. W. Saunders being no doubt intended. 

 The label was not in Mr. Saunders's handwriting, and his son (Mr. E. Saunders) 

 who has seen the specimen thinks that the pin was not one likely to have been used 

 by his father — still, of course it may have been re-pinned. 



If it was really received from Mr. Wilson Saunders a curious result follows. 



So far as I know, four British collections only (the British Museum, the Hope, 

 Dr. Mason's, and my own) contain each a single specimen professing to represent 

 the insect described by Shuckard, Smith, &c, under the name " Hedychrum fervi- 

 dum." Of these, three arc really varieties (all different) of Holopyga gloriosa, ¥., 

 while the fourth is a Hedychrum rutilans. Not one of them is the true " fervidum," 

 or rather, "fervida," viz., Holopyga fervida, E., which apparently does not occur in 

 this country at all. All four specimens can be traced probably, and my own, cer- 

 tainly, to Mr. Wilson Saunders's collection, and he alone is recorded (vide Shuckard) 

 as having captured " Hedychrum fervidum" in this country. 



