248 Kev. F. D. Morice on Andrena tarao'Mci, etc. 



I should hardly have detected its distinctness. Close 

 examination, however, shows even in the $ % differences 

 which, though slight, seem constant and sufficient (see the 

 Table). AH my specimens (1 ^ and many $ $ ) were 

 taken by myself near Algiers last spring (1898). 



8. Senccionis, Perez (Melliferes, p. 39), is a very distinct 

 species. I took it in great abundance in Algeria and 

 also in Italy. It occurs, too, at Canet in South France 

 (coll. E. Saunders), and in Spain (Friese). The paradoxical 

 pilosity of the valvula is usually visible without dissection, 

 and the two outcurling flocculi at its apex will distinguish 

 the species at a glance. The apices of the dorsal segments 

 are widely pale — almost yellow — especially in the females. 

 This, together with the golden pilosity and the finely 

 punctured, almost shining body surface, gives it a decidedly 

 brighter appearance than that of any other species in the 

 group. 



9. Stalnana, n. sp. I have several of both sexes from 

 Castellamare near Naples, the ancient StabisB. Mr. 

 Saunders has it also from Sicily. These are the only 

 specimens I have seen. Until the $ valvula ventralis is 

 extracted (to show the lateral teeth) it looks rather like 

 that of livens, but the body surface is very unlike that 

 species. The ^ is superficially very like a small fcori.raci, 

 but the characters given in my table distinguish it easily 

 from that or any other species. 



10. Uumilis, Imhofif, The author describes the ^ 

 clypeus in this species as normally black, but sometimes 

 white. Hence it has been thought that his was a mixed 

 species ; and the name fulvcsccns, Smith, is generally 

 employed on the Continent to denote the white-faced 

 common form, which occurs all over the Continent and 

 also in England. But I have found in Switzerland, Italy, 

 and South France, along with the normal white-faced 

 males, other males with a Mack clypeus, completely like 

 them otherwise, and with a rahmla rcuircdis which after 

 careful examination I can only consider as specifically 

 identical with theirs. (See Plate VII, Fig. 10, drawn 

 from a $ with black clypeus, and Fig. 11 from a (British) 



$ with white clypeus, which is certainly the fulvcsccns of 

 Smith.) I believe, then, that Imhoff was right, there 

 being in fact two forms of the $ in this species : and his 

 name being much older than that of Smith (1832, Isis ix, 

 p. 1201) should be employed, as has been done by Mr. E. 



