IJi/nienoptera of the Australian Region. 99 



To PaUeorhiza belong P. pcrvlridis, P. rcgtnanim, P. luxii- 

 rio.iay P. varicolor, P. turneriana, P. paraUela^ P. perkinsij 

 P. denticmida, P. melanura, P.flavomellea, and P. basilura. 



Merof/lossa boudinensis (which I have not examined), 

 according to Prof. Cockcrell^ "from its evident afHnitics 

 must be a Meroglossa" (iuol. Palaorhiza) \ but I think this 

 improbable^ as I have taken the female of an allied species 

 — probably Prosopis cyaneomicans, and this is not at all 

 related to eitlier Meroglossa or Paheorhiza. 



It should be noticed that " the comb on the first two 

 joints of the maxillary palpi/' said to be a noteworthy 

 traturc of Meroglossa (inch Pulceorhiza), is also found (quite 

 similar) in some of the Australian Prosopis proper, as 

 described by Prof. Cockerell, and having no near relationship 

 "with Meroglossa (incl. Palaor/iiza). 



It is to be regretted that Prof. Cockerell should have been 

 ol)ligcd to describe his species at intervals and without any 

 opportunity to review the whole together with Smith's 

 species. I feel sure that, should he do so, he would agree 

 with me as to the distribution of the species in the manner 

 given above, and no doubt, having studied a larger number 

 of described species than I have, he could at once determine 

 the position of the misplaced Prosopis. 



I have not been able to dissect the male of any of the 

 black species of Meroglossa, which have the scutcllum and 

 postscutellum bright yellow and have been described as 

 Prosopis, as the specimens with this coloration that I possess 

 are all females. 



Meroglossa penetrata, Sm. 



It is remarkable that Smith should not have recognized 

 this as a Meroglossa, as, apart from the sexual differences, 

 the female has a great superficial resemblance to his M. cana- 

 liculata. I have observed this species in life at Bundabcrg, 

 where it was common. M. canaliculnta I have received in 

 numbers from Port Darwin. Prof. Cockerell has descriljcd 

 a M. lactifera supposed to be allied to M. penetrata. I 

 should think from the description that M. lactifera is certainly 

 no Meroglossa, but either a Prosopis or Palceorhiza, and tiiat 

 the resemblance is superficial. 



These comparatively big bees form a group [Meroglossa 

 proper) very distinct from the M. eucalypti section (Mero- 

 glossula) of the genus. The sagittee of the genital armature 

 of the male extend to or beyond the apices of the stipites, 

 whereas in eucalypti and its allies the sagittae are vei-v short 



7* 



