fjS [A'Ugust, 



with Brischkc's description, as quoted in the 1st part of Mr. Marshall's Monograph, 

 and was dug at roots of a pear tree, near Worcester. Subsequent efforts to obtain 

 more have been fruitless. I observed tlie omission of any reference to this specimen 

 at the time the first part was issued, but deferred further notice of the subject in 

 the hope of working up my Braconidce as a whole. — J. E. Fletcher, Worcester : 

 June, 1887. 



Odynerus reniformis, Gmel., at Cholham, Surrey. — On the 4th of this month 

 I was collecting at Chobham, and was surprised to observe on a part of the common 

 which I know particularly well, the curved tubes of an Odynerus projecting above 

 the sandy soil. I waited by one of these for the return of its owner, and was pleased 

 to find that it was the rare O. reniformis. I obtained three females, and could, no 

 doubt, have taken more, as there were many tubes visible. I have collected a great 

 deal at Chobliam, especially in the exact locality above mentioned, but I have never 

 before observed the tubes of this insect, and am very much inclined to think that 

 it has taken up its abode there this year for the first time. This locality is about 

 four miles from wliere Mr. Billups took it in 1884. — Edwaed Saunders, St. Ann's, 

 Bromley, Kent : July 8th, 1887. 



Aspidiotus rapax, Comstock, in Europe {Aspidiottis rapa.r, Comstock, Eep. of 

 Ent. of U. S. Dept. of Agr. for year 1880 [1S81], pp. 307, 308, pi. xii, fig. 6).— On 

 the leaf and flower bracts of camellia I have found in great numbers a species of 

 Aspidiottis which, after microscopical examination, appeared to me to be identical 

 ■with Professor Comstock's species, A. rapax. I therefore sent him some specimens 

 for his opinion, and I append his answer. I thought at first that my specimens 

 might prove to be tlie A. camellice, Boisduval, although they did not entirely agree 

 with Dr. Signoret's description or figure (Ess. sur les Coch. [1868], p. 91, pi. iii, 

 fig. 9), and I wrote to Mr. Douglas, asking him for a specimen of the A. camellia, 

 which he mentions having been found in England (Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. xxii, p. 249). 

 He kindly sent me several specimens, out of which I succeeded in making one 

 suitable for microscopical examination, but this has proved to be identical with my 

 own specimens, and therefore must be considered A. rapax, Comstock. Whether 

 the A. camellifp, Boisd., may ultimately prove to be identical with A. rapax, Corns., 

 cannot at present be determined. To quote Mr. Douglas' own words : — 



" As A. camellice, by description and figure, does not appear to be exactly the 

 same as A. rapax, they must be kept separate, the difference being noted, until some 

 lucky chance may clear the matter up." 



Professor Comstock remarks in his letter : — " I think, without doubt, the speci- 

 mens which you send belong to my species, Aspidiotus rapax. As to whether my 

 A. rapax is a synonym of A. camellice I cannot express an opinion now. Boisduval's 

 description is unrecognisable, and unless we can get typical specimens, it will be mere 

 guess work to apply his name to any species. If there were only a single species of 

 A.<spidiotus that infested camellias, we would be reasonably certain that this was the 

 one referred to ; but I cannot see that anything is to be gained by throwing aside a 

 specific name which is so fully defined that the species can be determined un- 

 questionably from the description, for the sake of a name, the definition of which 

 will apply to almost any species of this genus. Of course, if types of A. camellice 



