92 AMERICAN HYMENOPT£RA. 



MEIilSSODCi^ Latr.* 

 The following are new records: 

 M. petulca Cress. Fedor, Texas, May 31st and June 17th {Birk 



mann). 



M. petulca suffusa (Cress.). Fedor, Texas, May 12th {Birhnann); 

 Flagstaff, Arizona, August, 1902 {Snotv, 441). 



M. grindeli(£ Ckll. % . Oak Creek Canon, Arizona, 6000 feet; 

 not quite typical, third subraarginal cell narrower above, and more 

 black hair on thorax than usual (Snow), also five females from same 

 locality (Snow). 



M. gilensis Ckll. % . Arizona {Snow) ; Colorado (Cresson col- 

 lection) ; 9 , Magdalena Mountains, New Mexico (Snotv, 1052). 



31. tristis CkW. $. Oak Creek Canon, Arizona (^Sjiow) ; Mag- 

 dalena Mountains, N. M. (Snoiv). 



M. montana Cress. % . Oak Creek Canon, Arizona (Snow). 



M. pallidicincta Ckll. 9 • Bill William's Fork, Arizona (Snow, 

 1005); Oak Creek Canon, Arizona, 6000 feet (Snow); Boulder, 

 Colorado, 9 , at flowers of Opuntia, July 5th (W. P. Cockerell) ; 

 Magdalena Mountains, New Mexico (Snow, 1190; ; Clark County, 

 Kansas, 1962 feet (Snow, 1187). 



3f. intermediella Ckll. 9 , var. with broader bands, like the So. 

 California form, Arizona (Snotv). 



M. aurigenia Cress. Oak Creek Canon, Arizona, both sexes 

 (Snow) ; Sterling, Colorado (S. A. Johnson) ; Durango, Colorado 

 (Gillette).; Greeley, Colorado (S. A. Johnson) ; Fort Collins, Colo- 

 rado (Colo. Agric. College). 



31. menuacha Cress. Denver, Colorado (*S'. A. Johnson). 



31. communis Cress. 9 • Tegulse fulvous, and band on third abd. 

 s. more or less divided into two, but real communis, nevertheless. 

 Bill William's Fork, Arizona (Snow, 1004). 



M. agilis subagilis Ckll. 7 males, Oak Creek Canon, Arizona 

 (Snotv). 



31. confusa Cress. $. Colorado (^Snow, 856). 



* It has been held that Melissoda Lepel., 1841, is a homouym of Melissodes. I 

 cannot agree to this, and in my opinion Lepeletier's name should be restored, if 

 the genus is considered distinct from AcanthojJus Klug, and if it is certain that it 

 has priority over Ctenioscheliis, Eomand, published in the same year. Smith, 

 however, cites as a synonym Isclmocera Shuck, 1840 (not Ischnocerus Grav., 1829), 

 but I suppose in error, as Dalla Torre gives no reference to it. 



