292 Sir S. Saunders' Notes on 



blackened tegument of the adult larvae of Osmia tndentata, 

 and undergoing their metamorphoses therein, each occu- 

 pying the interior of a single larva, having the head 

 directed towards the broad anal segments of the latter, 

 thus pointing downwards in the briar-cells, and issuing 

 therefrom in the imago state about the middle of June. 

 This differed from Dufour's species in having the incms- 

 sdted posterior femora hright red in the female, and the 

 ieejida bhiek ; whereas in the corresponding sex of the 

 latter all the legs were black, and the tegula red. 



M. Jules Lichtenstein, of Montpellier, the following 

 year obtained a female, which he supposed to be the lost 

 Eaehahis rctust((, Duf., from briars in the South of 

 France; — found "a I'interieur d'une larve d' Osmia 

 toute desechee et d'un noir de jais brillant" (' Annales,' 

 1874; Bulletin, p. Ixiv). He had not then been enabled 

 to determine the species of Osmia referred to ; but 

 subsequently the same diligent observer reared both 

 sexes of this Haltieella from the briar-cells of Osmia 

 tridentata ('Annales,' 1879; Bulletin, p. xliii) ; still 

 referring thereto as the " Euehaleis vetusta que Ton 

 n'avait pas signale, en France du moins, depuis 1815." 

 He made no mention, however, on either occasion, of his 

 specimens differing from Dufour's diagnosis, as afore- 

 said ; while recognising them as identical with those of 

 //. osmicida ; adding, that my observations on their 

 economy were " absolument analogues " to his own. 



M. Andre now figures this French species, in default 

 of any other, as the genuine representative and antitype 

 of the long-lost Spanish original ; admitting, however, 

 that "la description de Dufour indique des ecaillettes 

 rouges et des j^fMes noires ; I'insecte represente possede 

 au contraire des ecaillettes tres noires et des euisses 

 rouges]" He suggests the following explanation of this 

 discrepancy. Speaking of the Spanish type, he sa3^s : — 

 " C'est sans doute une variete curieuse, ou peut-etre une 

 erreur de copie du Dufour, qui, au moment de la publi- 

 cation de cette espece, en 1861, ne I'avait plus sous les 

 yeux depuis 1815, et ne pouvait se reporter qu'a des 

 notes conservees depuis cette epoque et peut-etre in- 

 completes." 



It would seem somewhat gratuitous to treat the 

 described Spanish prototype as a curious variety, and 

 to substitute in its stead a French species essentially 

 divergent therefrom ; nor less so to suppose that, by 



