CHARLES W. METZ. 129 



the same range as any other series of the species. This 

 variety, like the var. magniclavis under P. cressoni, is one in 

 which the yellow markings are strongly emphasized, but 

 otherwise it is like the small specimens of the other forms. 



P. inoclestus var. illinoiensis, (Rob.). 



Robertson described this as a distinct species having the 

 face marks somewhat club shaped laterally, instead of nar- 

 rowing on eye margin as in sayi. Robertson did not recog- 

 nize P. modestus at that time, and described this and sayi, to 

 include what had been called modestus. There is a large 

 amount of material of this general description in the series 

 of modestus, at hand, including a number that have been 

 identified as P. illinoiensis Rob. but it merely composes part 

 of the group as discussed above. The form " /*. sayi'' of 

 Robertson is the typical modestus, and " Z'. illinoie?isis'\ in- 

 cludes those having the stout, or slightly club shaped lateral 

 marks. This division is purely arbitrary, and will not, as 

 Robertson himself indicated, serve to separate any but the 

 individuals which happen to be so marked. Nevertheless it 

 is useful for this, and very serviceable in separating large 

 lots into general groups. 



In all the above forms the main characteristics distinguish- 

 ing modestus are found. That is, the impunctate or very 

 sparsely punctured abdomen, the comparatively broad face, 

 and stout scape of the males serve to distinguish them from 

 the other species having similar genitalia. The relationship 

 between them and some of the following, however, is very 

 close, as will be seen. 



Whether or not the species now known as modesties is the 

 same as the original species described as such by Say, is a 

 debatable question. The types are no longer in existence 

 and very little can be determined from the original descrip- 

 tion, but for many reasons it seems advisable to retain the 

 name, now so long and widely used ; especially since it is 

 applied only to this one species and can cause no confusion. 

 This question is discussed more in detail by Mr. Lovell 

 (Psyche. 10 : 182, 3), whose conclusion I have adopted. 



TRANS. AM. ENT. SOC, XXXVII. (17) 



