406 AMERICAN HYMENOPTERA. 



idea in the matter, have placed fervidus as a synonym of 

 pe7insylv aniens. As I hold to the view that the figure in ques- 

 tion does not represent fervidus, I will here give my reasons, 

 as follows : 



1. The figure represents a female showing more black on the apical 

 portion of the abdomen than B. fervidus would ever show in a like 

 position. A female of pennsylvanicus , as above described, or of auri- 

 comus would, however, in the same position show about the same 

 amount of black pile in this region as is shown in the figure. 



2. The figure represents a female with the black pile running up on 

 the mesopleura nearly to the level of the bases of the wings. I have 

 never seen such coloration of the mesopleura on any specimen of fervi- 

 dus taken in the United States. This coloration of the mesopleura is, 

 however, typical with atnericanoruni and with atiricomus . 



3. That the scutellum of the figure is yellow, is an indication that 

 fervidus was the species represented. This, however, is not proof, as 

 there are specimens of both americanoruni and auricomus before me 

 with the scutellum completely covered with pure yellow pile. 



4. Four dorsal abdominal segments are not represented in the figure 

 as being covered with yellow pile as might be thought by superficial 

 examination. What appears to be the first segment in the figure is 

 somewhat darker colored than what appears to be the three following 

 segments and this was evidently intended to represent the darker and, 

 as is often the case with arnericanorum, mixed black and yellow por- 

 tion of the first segment, and what appears in the figure to be the 

 second segment was evidently the remaining pure yellow portion of the 

 first segment. The abdomen shown in the figure also represents the 

 abdomen of auricotnus very well. 



I have submitted this question, with the figure and speci- 

 mens and all the arguments pro and con known to me, to 

 eight different workers in entomology. Of these eight, six 

 agreed with me and two were undecided. If the type 

 specimen is still in existence and some European student of 

 Bombidae comes across it, he will confer a great favor on 

 American workers by straightening this matter out definitely 

 once for all. Until such time, however, it seems to me that 

 we must either adopt the view given above (which is the 

 same as the one first published by Cresson and held to by 

 him), or consider pennsylv aniens and atirieonius as being the 

 same, or reject the name pennsylv aniens altogether. It would, 

 perhaps, be wisest to drop the name pennsylv aniens, but, as 



