46G 



Mr. G. Meade-Waldo on 



short, broad, shallowly emarginate, with a slight longitudi- 

 Dal carina. Mandibles arched, 4-toothed. Posterior tibise 

 very coarsely punctured. Metatarsus iii. cylindrical, only 

 half as broad as tibise. 



Length 15 ram. 



The species can be separated from M. bellula, which is a 

 Megachile sens, str., as fellows ; — 



M. {EumegacMlc) hin(/hami, 5 . 

 Face without white pubescence. 

 Wings fusco-hyaline. 

 Metatarsus iii. cylindrical, half as 



broad as tibiae. 



M. bellula, $ . 



Face with white pubescence. 



Wings hyaline. 



Metatarsus iii. as broad as tibise. 



The following characters serve to separate the males :- 



M. (Eumegachile) hinghami, J . 



Anterior tarsi .simple. 



Thorax clothed with dark pubes- 

 cence. 



Abdomen entirely clothed with 

 fulvous pubescence. 



Abdominal segment 6 notched, 

 with longitudinal carina. 



M. bellula, J . 



Anterior tarsi dilated. 



Thorax clothed with pale, golden- 

 brown pubescence. 



Abdominal segments with fulvous 

 apical fascife. 



Abdominal segment 6 simple, with- 

 out longitudinal carina. 



Megachile luculenta, Bingh. 



Mer/achile luculenta, Bingh. Journ. Bomb. N. H. Soc. p. 249 (1890). 



Hah. Tavoy, x. 1889 (type) ; Runjit Valley, Sikldm, 

 V. 1894; Salween Valley, Upper Tenasserim, vii. 1892 and 

 iv. 1893 {Bingham Coll.) ; Bhutan (G. C. Dudgeon). 



It is necessary to revive this name, which has been made 

 a synonym of M. mystacea, P. It is evident that Bingham 

 has wrongly identified the Fabrician species (type in Banks 

 Coll.) from Australia, though later he quite correctly 

 remarks (Trans. Zool. Soc. p. 183, 1909) that M. mystacea 

 has nothing to do with the African M. {Eumegacliile) rnji^ 

 ventris, Guer. 



M. luculenta is a considerably larger species, being 20 mm. 

 in length, whereas M. mystacea is only 15 mm. 



Megachile ornata, Smith. 



Megachile ornata, Sm. Catal. Hymen. Brit. Mus. i. p. 183 (18-53). 

 Megachile mi^iiuta, Bingh. Journ. Bomb. Soc. x. p. 199, fig. 6 

 (1896). 



Smith did not know the locality of this species at the 

 time he described it, but has written in " Sumatra " in the 



