( 155 ) 
VI. Further Notes on two Osmia-sj?ecies of the adunca-^row^j 
By the Rev. F. D. Morice, M.A., F.E.S. 
[Read March 2nd, 1910.] 
In a paper read on December 5th, 1900, and published in 
the Society’s transactions for the following year, I offered 
some remarks on such (9s?Rm-species of the adunca-gxoxx^ as 
were then known to me, and endeavoured to clear up 
certain difficulties about their synonymy. Among the 
forms discussed in that paper were two, of which I knew 
$ $ only. One was so large and striking a form that 
it surprised me to find it apparently undescribed. But 
undescribed it seemed to be, and I named it manicata n. sp. 
The other I ventured to identify with a species described 
by Morawitz under the name loti, which name was pre¬ 
sently “ sunk ” by Gerstaecker (owing in my opinion to a 
mistake), and appears in later works only as a “ synonym ” 
—the ^ of one • species, the ^ of another. Having since 
become acquainted with the ? ? of both these forms, and 
having taken manicata, both sexes together, in several 
new localities, I offer the Notes here following as a kind of 
supplement to my former paper. 
1. Osmia loti, Morawitz. 
According to Gerstaecker, loti, Mor., is merely the 
well-known caementaria, Gerst. But Morawitz expressly 
notes that his species was exclusively attached to Lotus, 
whereas caementaria, so far as is known, visits only Fchium. 
However much, therefore, the description of loti ^ may 
have suggested caementaria, it was surely a rash assumption 
on the part of Gerstaecker, who (N.B.) does not seem to 
have actually examined Morawitz’s types, that the two 
must necessarily be identical. If it can be shown that in 
or near the region whence loti was described a distinct 
species exists, attached to Lotus and not to Fchium, and 
having in both sexes the characters assigned by Morawitz 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1910.— PART II. (JUNE) 
