APIS, (**. d. 2. «.) 301 



This insect, however, has been mistaken by Fabri- 

 cius and many other Entomologists, and confound- 

 ed with another. As it is usually very hairy, this 

 author regarded it as a Bomhinatrix, and took it 

 for granted that it could be no other than the A, 

 acervorwn, Linn. Possessed with this idea, he 

 added to " hirsuta, atra," the Linnean definition, 

 the terms " tibiis posticis ferrugineis," in which he 

 has been followed by Gmelin and others. But had 

 he paid due attention to the description of the 

 Fauna Suecica, he would have been convinced 

 that, by A. acervorum, Linneus intended a very 

 different insect. " Praecedenti (z) similis," says he, 

 ^* sed minor ; toto corpore nigro, immaculato ex- 

 ceptis setulis quibusdam circa collum sulphureis." 

 These terms plainly exclude the tibiae ferrugineae 

 oi Aretusa, of which I never saw a specimen, and 

 I have seen many, that had any sulphureous hairs 

 about its neck. I suspect that the specimen pre- 

 served in the Linnean cabinet, as A. acervorum^ is 

 not the original one, although its label is an auto- 

 graph of Linneus. When an insect with such a 

 label answers to the description of Linneus, no 

 doubt can remain of its authenticity ; but when it 

 varies from it, its claim to be considered as the ori- 

 ginal specimen is a good deal invalidated. In the 

 present instance, the specimen differs from the 

 description in several respects; its wings are vio- 

 let^ it has no sulphureous hairs about its neck_, and 

 {%) Nempe yf . lucorum, Linn, 



the 



