144 fNovember, 18C6. 
Shuckard has iutroduoed it, appear to have been taken at Nice ; — and are, moreover, 
mixed with the males of Osmia adunca, Panz., a species not found in Britain. The 
little leaf-cutter bee, Megachile argentata, is repeatedly to be seen doing duty for 
Anthocopa, both in British and foreign collections. 
It may be objected, also, that the greater part of the first half of the volume, 
however interesting to a general reader, is out of place in what is intended for a 
woi'king hand-book ; the chapter on geographical distribution being, moreover, 
largely indebted to (if not entirely compiled from) Mr. Smith's paper on the Geo- 
graphical Distribution of Hyvienoptera, published in the Proceedings of the Linna!an 
Society. 
Mr. Shuckard, also, does not appear to have a very clear idea of the correct 
method of referring to an author ; thus, Prosopis cornuta should be quoted as of 
Smith, not of Kirby ; Halictus Jlavipes, Fabricius, not Kirby ; Osmia pilicomis, 
Smith, not Bainbridge ; and Andrena longipes, Smith, not Shuckard. With refer- 
ence to the two latter insects is a somewhat puerile note at p. 211, applying the 
term " buccaneering" to the suppression of reference to Messrs. Bainbridge and 
Shuckard as their " original authority" respectively. Surely Mr. Shuckard must 
know better than to suppose that distributing an insect with a manuscript name 
attached is such a publication as can be referred to. The first describer may (and 
in common courtesy will always) make such reference ; but all subsequent quota- 
tions attribute the insect to its first pubUshed description. The term " buccaneer- 
ing," — itself conceived in bad taste, — is here singularly inappropriate. Mr. Smith, 
in first describing A. longipes (Zool., v., p. 1740), refers to it correctly as A. longipes, 
Shuckard, and mentions that gentleman's first discovery of it. But, in his mono- 
gi'aph, he was obliged to refer to his own description, as being the first. As 
regards 0. piUcornis, a reference to its first description by Mr. Smith (Zool., iv., p. 
1568) will shew that he first received it from Mr. Walcott with the name piUcornis 
in MS., accompanied by a request not to publish it with Mr. Walcott's name 
attached, as he had the insect from Capt. Blomer, who he believed first captured it. 
Mr. Smith apjiears to have been unaware of Mr. Bainbridge's claims (if any) in the 
matter; and (especially since the latter's MS. name happens to have been given to 
the insect) no discourtesy can therefore be laid to his charge. 
There are many other points exciting adverse remark ; such as the incorrect- 
ness of the synonomy of the JBombi, — the objectionable reference to the discovery 
by Nylander of specific characters in the ventralplates of the abdomen in Ccslioxys ; — 
which, — if, as Mr. Shuckard admits, he has had no opportunity to examine, — it 
would have been better to have passed over in silence than to stigmatize (in two 
instances) as " supposed," &c. 
Considering that an injustice has been done by this volume to one of our 
hardest working and foremost Entomologists, we have devoted more of our space to 
this review than can usually be afibrded ; and we conclude with Mr. Shuckard'a 
grandiose i^eroration to his half-page of adverse reference to Mr. Smith's work (p. 
169) ; — " It is in no spirit of captiousness that these objections are made ; they are 
deduced from collocations whose conspicuous incoherence is patent to the most 
superficial observation" (! !). 
