156 Rev. F.^. Morice’s furtlur Notes on 
to his loti, the whole theory of Gerstaecker seems to me 
to break down. There is no longer any reason for doubting 
that Morawitz’s $ and ^ belonged to the same species, nor 
for altering the name in either sex. The name “ mora- 
witzi, Gei'st,,” must become a mere synonym of loti ^ ; and 
if the laws of priority will allow any species to bear still 
the name morcmitzi (as to which experts must decide), it 
must be applied in future to the morawitzi of Perez and 
Schmiedeknecht—a species which I believe I have shown 
to be distinct from loti, and consequently from “ morawitzi, 
Gerst.,” which is simply the latter re-named for no good 
reason ! 
I now proceed to offer further evidence in support of my 
view that such a species does in fact exist, and that the 
name of loti, Mor., should therefore be restored to the list of 
European 0s7nm-species. 
In 1900 I knew only that a ^ Osmia answering as well 
as, and in my opinion even better than, morawitzi, Perez, to 
the original description of loti was to be found on the hill 
called Petit Saleve, within a walk of Geneva, but on the 
French side of the frontier, I had a vague impression 
that I had taken my specimens on LoUis, and was pretty 
sure that they had not occurred on Echium. But I 
abstained from mentioning this point till I could verify it, 
and rested my argument solely on consideration of the 
characters assigned to loti by its author. Since my paper 
appeared I have twice been in the neighbourhood of the 
Saleve, but once only Avhen the Lotus was in bloom, viz. in 
the spring of 1908, On the latter occasion I made frequent 
excursions, sometimes alone, and sometimes in company 
Avith my old and revered friend the veteran Swiss hymeno- 
pterist, M. Emil Frey-Gessner, of the Geneva University 
Museum, on purpose to clear up, if possible, the mystery 
as to the habits of loti^, and to discover its $. In the first 
object I succeeded, again taking ^ ^ with all the peculiar 
characters described in my former paper, and finding that 
they did occur, as anticipated, only on Lotus cornicula- 
tus. But Ave sought in vain for ^ And, although on 
examination of M. Frey-Gessner’s cartons containing his 
captures of recent years, and also in the collections of the 
late M. Tournier, certain $ ^ from the Saleve and else- 
Avhere occurred, resembling, but apparently distinct from, 
morawitzi. Per., some of Avhich Avere actually ticketed as 
found visiting Lotus coo’nictdatus, there Avas no actual proof 
