T. D. A. COCKERELL. 107 



APPENDIX. 



IVIelissodes glenwoodensis Ckll. 



^[axwell City, New Mexico, at flowers of Grindelia, September 

 2, 1899 (Miss S. L. Mize). New to New Mexico. The smooth 

 parts of the abdomen in this species ( 9 ) have a distinct metallic 

 lustre, with greenish and purplish tints. This reminds one of F lor i- 

 legus condignus, and upon comparison, I believe that glenwoodensis 

 really is related to condignus, differing principally in the strongly 

 plumose scopa of hind tibia, and the color of the hair on the hind 

 legs and thorax above. This tends to break down the validity of 

 Flor-ilegus. 



9Ielis»«odes blakei (.'kll. 



Tularosa Creek, New Mexico, at flowers of Chrysothamnus grave- 

 oleiis glabrata, October 4th (Cockerell). This differs from the type 

 in the broader abdominal bands (more as in mizece), and the flagel- 

 lura black, with only a few obscure reddish dots beneath. The form 

 of the abdomen agrees with blakei; so also the venation, etc. I am 

 rather disposed to think that blakei will prove to be a mountain 

 race of mizece, although the types certainly look like different spe- 

 cies. Although the type of M. blakei was taken in the Canadian 

 Zone, the new specimen, with flower record, indicates that it belongs 

 more properly to the Transition Zone. 



Melissodes liortiTagstns Ckll. 



So far as I can make out from the description (and it seems quite 

 adequate) 31. variabilis Robertson is the same. Both were pub- 

 lished in 1905 — hortivagans in June, variabilis in October. 31. 

 hortivagans goes far south, as is shown by a female before me cap 

 tured by Mr. Wilmon Newell at Keatchie, Louisiana, June 11, 1905. 



Melissodes tlielypodii Ckll. 



1 have a $ from Las Cruces, New Mexico, at flowers of Ipomcea 

 mexicana, collecting pollen (the large grains are entangled in the 

 tibial scopa), August 25th (Cockerell). The specimen is somewhat 

 smaller than the type (width of abdomen 5 ram., 5^ in the type), 

 but otherwise identical. The affinities of the insect are with 31. 

 tepaneca and 31. galvestonensis, but it is larger and more robust than 

 these. 



TRANS. .\.M. ENT. SOC. XXXII. FBBRUAEY, 1906. 



