publication of " Jurinean " Genera of Hymenoptera. 417 



The Erlangen List enumerates under Prosopis : — 

 1. Sphex annulata; 2. signal a Panzer; 3. Hylaeus amiu- 

 latus Fab. ; 4. MeMinus alratus Fab., inedit. 



This " Sphex annulata " cannot possiblv be the Fabrician 

 Sphex annulata F. [Sppl. Ent. Syst. 245" (1798); Coq. 111. 

 Ic. Ins. 2-51 Pf. 12-4 (1801)J, which is a highly coloured 

 Cryptocheilus Pzr. (= § Salius F.) — a Psatmnocharid. 



Mellinus atratus may also be set aside as a species then 

 undescribed. Panzer has figured a Sphex anmdata Pzr. 

 (53" 1) and a Sphex signata Pzr. (53'2) — the former a (^, 

 the latter a $, both certainly belonging to Prosopis Auctt. 

 Neither shows any trace of lateral white hairs on the first 

 abdominal segment, or of yellow streaks on the pronotum, 

 etc. — it is probably impossible to identify either with 

 certainty, but there is no reason to say that the former is 

 not the (^ of annulata L. (= communis Auctt.), and the 

 latter the $ of signata Auctt. ( = bipunctata F., sec Dalla 

 Torre), except that signata has white hairs on the first 

 abdominal segment laterally which do not appear in 

 Panzer's figure. In 1807 Jurine figures Prosopis bifasciatus 

 (sic) as representative of his genus, but this was not one 

 of the species which he listed in 1801. 



[It should be noted that the name " Sphex bimaculala " 

 is associated with the diagnosis of Sphex signata Pzr. 

 (53'2), but evidently by mistake, since Panzer published 

 Sphex bimaculala as a species 51"4.] 



The genus Hylaeus was first published by Fabricius, in 

 1793, for the reception of sixteen species, including annulata 

 L. Prosopis hitherto has not been traced to an earlier 

 date than 1807 (Nouv. Meth. Hym.), but the Erlangen List 

 carries it back to 30 May 1801 — even so, however, Hylaeus 

 F. (1793) is by far the older name, and, if the two genera be 

 identical, Hylaeus having always had priority cannot now 

 be discarded. We come to this decision with considerable 

 regret, quite agreeing with Latreille [Uen. Crust- Ins. 4. 

 149-50 (1809)] that the genus Hylaeus F. was " char- 

 acteribus incertis fulcitum et specierum complexione 

 maxime discordans," and that the genus Prosopis had 

 been treated by Fabricius with equal infelicity, to which 

 we must add that Prosopis Jrn. is a genus, which, apart 

 from the name, fulfils every requirement of modern science. 



The Type of Hylaeus F. was cited by Latreille (1802, etc.) 

 as Hylaeus annulaius F. ; the Type of Prosopis Jrn. should 

 be either the same species, or that which Jurine figured 



