1892.] 51 



In 1868, in a nest of sanguinea at Shirley I found the following species, besides 

 the usual F.fusca : L. niger, L. flavus, T. erratica, M. ruginodis, M. scalrivodis, 

 M. lohicornis, L. acervorum, and L. NyJanderi (Entom. Annual, 1868), and the 

 incident above recorded I think shows that acervorum is probably more of a constant 

 resident than a casual visitor in sanguinea's nest. — Gr. A. James Rothnet, 15, 

 Versailles Road, Anerley : January lO^A, 1892. 



Occurrence of Halictus cylindricus ^ in April — In connection with Mr. R. C. 

 L. Perkins' interesting remarks on stylopized bees in this month's Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 the following may be worth recording. On April 21st, 1882, 1 captured at Penzance 

 (and have now in my collection) a male Halictus cylindricus. The appearance of 

 a (^ so early in the year was a surprise to me, and I made a special note of it at the 

 time, so that there is no doubt whatever about the exact date. The winter and 

 spring had been unusually mild, and this individual (together with others, perhaps), 

 had survived — a living exception to the rule that " the S Salicti all perish at the 

 approach of winter." — E. D. Marquand, Fermain, Guernsey : January llth, 1892. 



Cathorniiocerus maritimus, Rye. — In the Bulletin Soc. Ent. France, 1891, p. 

 ccxxiii (Meeting of November 25th), M. Croissandeau records the capture, in con- 

 siderable quantity, of C. maritimus at RoscofP, Morlaix Bay (Finisterre). They were 

 obtained by sifting upraised sods of herbage in uncultivated ground. The only 

 British locality yet known for it is the neighbourhood of Portsmouth. Bedel 

 (Col. du Bassin de la Seine, vi, p. 235) records C. socius, Boh., from Finisterre ; but, 

 as has already been pointed out by Uhagon and others, his insect is probably C. 

 maritimus, Rye.* — G. C. Champion, 11, Caldervale Road, Clapliam, S.W. : Decem- 

 ber 18th, 1891. 



(Ecanthus pellucens not a BritisJi insect. — Mr. Shaw, in his excellent Synopsis 

 of British Orihoptera, published in this Magazine (1890, p. 169), allows (Ecanthus 

 pellucens a place in our list of insects (though with great doubt as to the propriety 

 of doing so) on the authority of a specimen said by Stephens to have been taken 

 many years ago by Haworth. Mr. Shaw was thus evidently unaware that this speci- 

 men had long since been summarily disposed of by Westwood, who states (Int. 

 Mod. Class, i, p. 448), " (Ecan^^M5pe/ZMce«5 . . . has been given as an indi- 

 genous species on the authority of a specimen in the collection of the late Mr. 

 Haworth. Having, however, purchased the insect at his sale, I am able to state that 

 the specimen has been misnamed, being in no manner related to the insect in 

 question." It may, therefore, be concluded that (Ecanthus pellucens has no claim of 

 any kind to a place in our catalogue of native insects. — D. Sharp, Cambridge : 

 January 2nd, 1892. 



[As the specimen probably still exists, it should not be difficult to decide what 

 it really is. — Eds.]. 



Myrmedobia tenella, Zett., and distinguenda, Rent. — Besides the characters 

 given by me for the $ of the above species in our last number, I may mention two 



* See Ent. Mo. Mag., xxv, p. 122. 



