NO. 1074. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME BEES—COCKERELL. 4^3 



ginous spur; anterior basitarsus yellow and the small joints ferru- 

 ginous, both with dense white hair behind; middle basitarsus yellow 

 with the apex black, the small joints dark, the last ferruginous; hind 

 basitarsus black, broadened and flattened, with short dark fuscous 

 hair on inner side; small joints of hind tarsi dark, the first three 

 with successively decreasing pencils of fuscous hair; abdomen yellow, 

 wdth the hind margins of the segments very broadly black, so that 

 •in the middle line there is more black than yellow ; extreme base of 

 fifth segment black (probably also the others, were they uncovered) ; 

 apical plate broadly truncate, yellow with the apex broadly and the 

 sides very narrowl}'^ black; venter yellow at sides and black in the 

 middle. 



Female. — More robust, but very similar in general appearance. 

 Scutellum and lateral fnargins of mesothorax dull orange; post- 

 scutellum yellow, but the yellow marks on prothorax and mesothorax 

 wanting; face much broader; scape slender and with more black; 

 flagellum normal, but the third antennal joint is at least as long as 

 the next three together; clypeus with more black; lateral face marks 

 reduced to irregular triangles, not going above level of antenna) ; legs 

 without yellow, except on the anterior and middle knees; middle 

 tibia" and tarsi brownish with curious short glittering hair; hair 

 on inner side of middle and hind basitarsi dark fuscous; hind tibiae 

 and basitarsi broad, with a large glittering scopa; hind tibial spurs 

 slender and normal; abdomen marked as in the male, but first seg- 

 ment black with a transverse yellow band not quite reaching the 

 margins; fifth segment with a heavy fringe of fuscous hair; venter 

 black, with long Avhite hairs fringing the segments. 



Habitat. — Carcarana, Argentine Republic {L. Bruner). One of 

 each sex. In P^riese's table of Tetrapedia " this runs to 31, and riuis 

 out because of the coloration of the venter of abdomen. It thus falls 

 intt) the T. picta group of Friese. Since writing the above, I have 

 corresponded with Doctor Friese, who would place the insect (along 

 with Holmberg's Ghacoana) in Epicharis. To this I can not assent, 

 as Epicharis is derived from Tetrapedia., mainly by the reduction in 

 the joints of the maxillary palpi; the subgenus Epicharo'ides., which 

 most resembles* Gcjenononiada^ has these palpi three- jointed. Ca?no- 

 nomada has six- jointed maxillary palpi, and thus goes w^ith Tetra- 

 pedia. On the other hand, I must agree wuth Doctor Friese that 

 Cosnonomada .is the same as Ghacoana. Holmberg's description of 

 Ghacoana melanoxantha appeared in 1903, and so G amonomada has 

 priority. Mr. Schrottky wrote me in 1906 that he had seen a speci- 

 men of Ghacoana melanoxantha from Asuncion and ascertained that 

 it was not an Epicharis. 



«Anu. k. k. Naturliist. Hofmuseums, Wien, 1899, p. 278. 



