272 [November, 



The alary character mentioned by Saunders in his description of the <j> 

 [Ent. Mo. Mag., 1906, p. 152] (viz., an upright cross-nervure in the posterior 

 wing) appears in the $ also, and is thought to be of real generic value, 

 occurring in no other group of the family. 



The insect seems to have a wide distribution (from Scandinavia 

 to Italy), but to be everywhere a great rarity. I once took a $ at 

 Innsbruck, but never, I believe, a $ , though I have something very 

 like it, but not in my opinion identical with it, from Lambese in 

 Algeria. It is utterly unlike any other North -European form in 

 both sexes ! 



(2). Nomenclature of the Genus Homonotus, Dhb. 



The proper generic name for this species seems to be Homonotus, 

 which was suggested for it in 1843 by Dahlbom [Hym. Eur., I, p. 35], 

 in the event of its proving generically distinct — as it certainly is — 

 from Salius F., with which he provisionally placed it. Previously he 

 had proposed for it another name, viz., Isonotus, but this he withdrew 

 on finding that the name was pre-occupied in Coleoptera. 



In spite of his suggestion to adopt the name Homonotus, Dahlbom 

 (I.e.) described the insect as a Salius ; and in 1845, when he revised 

 his former work, he not only left sanguinolentus in Salius, but com- 

 mitted the crime of re- introducing the name Homonotus in a totally 

 different sense, so that Homonotus Dhb., 1845, is a "homonym" of 

 of Homonotus, Dhb., 1843 ! 



The name Salius, F., was invalid from the first, having been used 

 already in a different sense before Fabricius appropriated it for his 

 own genus. Also, as said above, sanguinolentus is not a Salius in the 

 Fabrician sense. So the name Salius is altogether " out of court," 

 though the species is so called by most recent authors, e.g., Thomson, 

 Taschenberg, etc. 



Fabricius himself described it originally as a Sphex (that name 

 being then used to cover practically all Fossorial Hymenoptera) . After- 

 wards he placed it in his new genus, Pompilus, and it is cited under 

 that name by E. Saunders [Ent. Mo. Mag., 1906, p. 152]. 



But it is now generally admitted that the name Pompilus, F., is 

 " invalid," as is Salius, and for the same reason, viz. : " pre-occupation 

 in another zoological group." 



The name Wesmaelinius, Costa (given by Saunders in brackets), 

 was proposed far later than Homonotus (viz., in 1887), and must there- 

 fore yield precedence to it. 



