E,ev. F. D. Morice on Andrena taraxaci, dc. 243 



and to cooperate in some common function. When at rest, 

 I think that function is mainly the protection of the frail 

 sagittse ; but since all alike are capable of motion in vari- 

 ous directions, they doubtless cooperate in some way for 

 other purposes, and each has probably some function in the 

 act of generation itself. Thus their curious and compli- 

 cated features are an extreme instance of functional adapt- 

 ation. 



(2) Notes on Andrena taraxaci, Giraud, and the species 

 most resemhling it, %uith synoptic tables, and descrip- 

 iio7is of txoo neio species. By the Rev. F. D. Morice 

 M.A., F.E.S. 



(2) 



In the paper preceding this, an attempt was made to 

 describe, and partly account for, certain specific characters 

 observable in the males of Andrena generally. I shall now 

 endeavour to use some of them (those of the valvida 

 centralis or 8th ventral segment) for a practical purpose, 

 making them contribute to the elucidation of a difficult 

 group of species, whose similarity in most characters has 

 caused much perplexity and disagreement among hymeno- 

 pterists. 



The only British species among them is that described 

 by Mr. Saunders as humilis, Imhoff, but known generally 

 on the Continent a,s fulvescens, Smith. In our limited fauna, 

 and also, according to Thomson, in that of Scandinavia, 

 this is a very distinct and easily recognised insect. 

 Thomson groups it only with fidvago, Chr., from which it 

 differs in many important and conspicuous characters. 

 But further South, and especially in the Mediterranean 

 regions, humilis, Imh. (as I shall call it for reasons presently 

 to be given), is only one among a large number of more or 

 less closely similar species. Many of them, I think, 

 resemble it only as fulvago does, i.e., quite superficially. 

 But others are so like it and one another not only in 

 general aspect, but in minute details of structure, that they 

 are constantly mistaken for one another even by experi- 

 enced hymenopterists. 



Of these species I know at least ten, which both in 

 superficial and structural characters resemble each other 

 deceptively, but whose males can be separated with ease 

 and certainty by the characters of the valvtda ventralis 



