1014.! 93 



Synonymy of Neoimurus halidaii, Marsh., with Elasmosoma berolinensc, 

 Rxdhe. — Hardly was my note on the former of the above names published (Ent. 

 Mo. Mag., 1914, p. 16) before I discovered Euthe's species to be identical with 

 that of Marshall, a female which I believe to be the type-specimen of the latter, 

 having been found in his collection in the British Museum. This ignorance on 

 the part of British Hymenopterists is entirely accounted for by the incorrect 

 position assigned to the genus Elasmosoma by the Continental authors, accentu- 

 ated by the supposed ignorance of the Eev. T. A. Marshall in 1888 (Bracon. 

 d'Europ. ii, 551), and the immature condition of the venation in this type — well 

 shown in the figure (Berl. Ent. Zeitschr , 1858, pi. iii, fig. 2) which, so far from 

 possessing Thomson's " Framvingarnes cubitus utgar straxt of van midten af 

 vena basalis, areolan ar niistan fyrkantig " (Opusc. Ent., xx, 1895, p. 2276), 

 shows little of the former and nothing whatever of the latter feature. No 

 areolet is traceable in any specimen I have yet examined, and I believe the 

 authors who place this genus in the " Areolaires " have done so & defaut de 

 mieux, or as Thomson unhappily remarks (of a purely neurational subfamily) 

 " species habitu fere Apantelis, alarum nervis mox distincta " ! Since Giraud's 

 reference to the myrmecophilous habits of this genus (Ann. Soc. Ent. France 

 1870, p. lvii et 1871, p. 229) Olivier has published notes upon it (Bull. lib. cit. 

 1893, p. lxxi et Eev. Sc. Bourbon. 1893, p. 112), supplemented by M. L'Abbe' 

 Pierre (lib. cit.). Giraud professes to have distinguished a second species of 

 the gemxs from Austria, and Thomson adds a third from Sweden ; what 

 Ashmead's three Nearctic forms may be I have no idea. — Claude Moblet, Monk 

 Soham House, Suffolk : March 1st, 1914. 



A humble-bee attacked by a Dipteron. — On April 22nd last as I was standing 

 on a walk in my garden, aboiit 11 a.m., the day being bright and sunny, I heard 

 a very loud hum, resembling that of a gnat, but greatly intensified, and looking 

 down saw what I feel sure was a fly and not a bee, though it resembled a small, 

 hairy, golden-brownish bee, hovering like a Syrphus, a few inches above the 

 ground and vibrating its wings most violently with an appearance of great 

 determination and rage. After continuing thus for perhaps 15 seconds, it 

 suddenly darted at a medium-sized black humble-bee, which was sitting on the 

 ground about a foot in front of it, and settled on its back, the bee at the same 

 moment flying away. They parted company before they had flown more than a 

 yard or two, but I could not see what became of them afterwards. I had 

 understood that these flies that mimic bees laid their eggs in the bees' nest, 

 escaping notice through their similarity to their hosts, but hei-e there was no 

 obvious advantage in the resemblance. Though I have collected Lepidoptera 

 for many years in many localities I have never seen such an occurrence, and 

 should be interested to know whether the attack was made with the object of 

 sucking the juices of the bee or laying an egg on its hairs or in its body. If on 

 the hairs, the larva might in this way be conveyed to the bees' nest and prey on 

 the bee larva, My impression was from the attitude when the two insects were 

 together, that the object was egg-laying, but the movements were so quick that 

 it was impossible to be certain. The bee seemed to have no sense of danger 



