i«'5.] 35 



Early in October I had occasion to go to Co. Slijro, and on the 

 4th, when driving from Skreen to Ballysodare. I noticed flying along 

 the roadside Pararge yEgeria, P. Megcern, and Vrmessa urticce. The 

 day was remarkably fine and the sun very strong, and butterflies 

 seemed as lively as in July. Sugar I found a hopeless failure ; I put it 

 out regularly in my garden, but got nothing save on October 18th, when 

 several Phlogophora meticulosa condescended to partake of the sweets. 

 October was a very fine month, and on the 22nd, when out walking, I 

 saw four Pararge Megcera and one very fresh looking Vanessa urticce 

 flying in the sunshine by the roadside. In spite, however, of the fine 

 weather Lepidoptera were very scarce, and in default of the imagines 

 we devoted ourselves to the capture of larva; and digging for pupae, in 

 which pursuits we found the unfavourable nature of the summer 

 against us, pupae in particular required a large amount of patience 

 and a good deal of muscular exercise. 



I have not been able to turn up Pselaphus dresdensis again. 

 There have been some floods in Mullinure, but they were quite un- 

 productive of beetles ; however, the Christmas holidays are at hand, 

 and I shall hope to meet my Pselaphid friend once more. 



Armagh : December IQth, 1894. 



NOTES ON TWO BEITISH SPECIES OF BOMBUS. 

 BY EDW^AED SAUNDERS, F.L.S- 



BoMBUs CuLLUMANUs, Kirby. 

 This species should be restored to our list ; in my Synopsis 

 (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lend., 1884', p. 241) I considered it to be a variety 

 of soroeVjs^A', Eab., following the views of E. Smith, in the First Edition 

 of his Bees of Great Britain ; in his Second Edition, however, he 

 treats Cullumanus as distinct. On the continent Schmiedeknecht and 

 Hoffer have considered it as a variety of soroensis, Thomson and 

 Handlirsch as distinct. The Kirbyan type, which is a cJ,is not iu 

 very good condition, and at the time when I was writing my Synopsis 

 I was satisfied that it was only a specimen of the var. Proteus, of 

 soroensis. On redcscribing our Bomhi lately, I examined the type 

 very carefully, and saw at once that my former determination was 

 wrong : the more shortly haired and less basally constricted posterior 

 metatarsi distinguishing it easily from soroensis ; in these respects it 

 more closely resembles pratorum, from which it is somewhat diflicult 

 to separate by external characters, the two species being exceedingly 



