464 Mv. G. Rleade-Waldo on 



Rarotonora (fVyaff-Glll), Celebes (Ida Pfeiffei-), and Am- 

 boyna {F. Muir). 



Megachile^ Latr. 

 Megachile alhopicta, Smith. 



Meqachile albopkta, Smith, Catal. Hymen. Brit. Mas. i. p. 1.54 (1853). 



$• . . 



Meqachile Jiahellipes, Perez, Especes Nouv. Melliferes Barbarie, p. 23 



(1895). c??. 



Both described from Algeria^ and evidently co-specific. 



M. jiahellipes has the scopa rather more golden than 



M. alhopicta, but the latter is probably a rather faded 

 specimen. 



Megachile ceylonensis, Bingh. 



Meqachile ceylonensis, Biugh. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. p. 453, pi xv. 

 f. 9 (1896).' e • 



The male of this species from Pundaloya, Ceylon (E. E. 

 Greew), is the type. The species is recorded as " M. cey- 

 lonica " in the Fauna Brit. India, Hymen, vol. i. p. 482 : 

 through an oversight, as it is correctly named in the key to 

 the species (/. c. p. 472). The insect from Tenasserim 

 described as the female of M. ceylonensis can have no affinity 

 Avith itj and is totally different in appearance, so that the 

 description of the male given in the 'Fauna of India/ 

 Hymenoptera, vol. i., is misleading, since no mention is made 

 of the most conspicuous character in the coloration of the 

 abdomen. 



A new name is thus necessary for this sex : — 



Megachile caroli, nora. nov. 



Megachile cei/lonensis, Bingh. Fauna Brit. India, Ilymeuoptera, vol. i, 

 p. 482 (1897). 



The species is quite adequately described (/. c). 



Megachile stulta, Bingh. 



Megachile stulta, Bingh. Fauna Brit. India, Hj^menoptera, vol. i. 

 p. 476 (1897). 6 ? • 



This is certainly a composite species, and the female must 

 be considered the type of Megachile stulta, Bingh. 



The specimen marked by Bingham as his type of the male 

 from Bangalore, S. India, agrees very well with a specimen 

 from Dehra Dun, United Provinces, determined by Dr. R. 

 C. L. Perkins as M. schaiiinslandi, Alfken, described from 



