ON THE PROBABLE HOST OF NOMADA FLAVOPICTA, K. 75 



liar structure of the prothorax is not mentioned, and the sculp- 

 ture of the neck of the prothorax and mesonotum differ slightly. 

 Yet I think it may he considered a colour variety — at least until 

 further investigation. Stephaniis Fioggattii, Cameron, appears 

 to be one of the commonest species of this family in the Solomon 

 Islands. There are seven females and four males in the 

 British Museum, and Mr, Brues records four females and two 

 males taken by Dr. Mann. The large proportion of males is 

 unusual. We are still without any details as to the history or 

 habits of this widely dispersed family. 



ON THE PEOBABLE HOST OF NOMADA 

 FLAVOPICTA, K. 



By R. C. L. Perkins, M.A., D.Sc, F.E.S., etc. 



In the * Journal of the Torquay Natural History Society ' for 

 1918 I published a list of the British species of Nomacla and the 

 hosts to which they are attached, and remarked that there was 

 only one species to which one or more definite hosts could 

 not now be assigned with certaint^y. This species of dubious 

 habits is N . flavopicta , K.— for many years erroneously considered 

 to be 'PsLUzer's jacohcece. 



So far as I know only once has a definite host been ascribed 

 to this species, F. Smith having reported it as being a parasite 

 on Andrtna flavipes {fidvicrnn). The locality where this observa- 

 tion was made, according to E. Saunders, was Littlehampton, 

 though Smith, in the second edition of his book, says — no doubt 

 in error — Sidmouth. Smith published a detailed list of his 

 Sidmouth captures and N. jacohaa, is not mentioned therein, and 

 further he expressly states that no parasites were observed at the 

 large colonies of A. fulvicrus which he found there. It is 

 remarkable that so distinct a Nomada, widely distributed as it is 

 in the south of England, and occasionally common, should not 

 be better known as to its habits. In the latest work I have seen 

 by J. D. Alfken, no definite host is given, but it is mentioned 

 that the males have been taken about colonies of A. argentata, 

 which is certainly not its host in England. In Suffolk I have 

 found it in some numbers on the flowers of Knautia, in company 

 with A. marginata (cetii) and nigriceps. A. fluvipes did not 

 occur in the locality, and, though Kirby described his fulvicrus 

 { = flavipes) from specimens taken at Barham, it can hardly be 

 common in the county, since Morley's list adds to this record 

 only a single stylopized male, and that also from the Ipswich dis- 

 trict. Tuck, who collected no less than 122 species of bees in the 

 Bury St. Edmunds district, captured N. flavopicta there, but no 



