The Zoologist— Ji'LY, 1869. 1729 



Life-Hislo) ies of Sawjlies. Translated from the Dutch of M. S. C. 



Snellen van Vollenhoven, by J. W. May, Esq. 



(Continued from Zool. S. S. 1616). 



CiMBEX CONNATA, Sclir. 



Imago. F. cle P. Schrank, Eiium. Insectorwn Austrioe, p. 322, 

 No. 648. Panzer, Deutschl. Ins. 84, 12 (Tenthr. raontana). 

 Lepel. de St. Furgeau, Monogr. Tenthr. No. 75. King, Versuch 

 — Gattung Cimbex, p. 83. Hartig, Blatt-nnd Holzwespen, p. 65. 

 Zaddach vnd Brischke, Beohacht, p. 254. 



Larva. Rosel von Rosenhof, Insectenhelustingungea II., Bomhyl. en 

 Ve.spar, tab. xiii. p. 57. De Geer, Menioires (Goeze's transl.) 

 ii. 2, 230 (larva onl}). Lyonel, Recherches, p. 175 — 179, pi. 16. 

 Ratzeburg, Forstinsecten, iii. p. 135. 



Cimbex iiiger, abdominis apice, tibiis tarsisque fuscescentibus, alis 

 caeruleo nitore relucentibus (mare) aut fiisco-aeneus, nitens, 

 abdominis flavi macula magna basali violacea, alis lule- 

 sceutibus. 



• 



The history of the determination of the insect whose metamorphosis 

 1 propose to describe in the following pages, illustrates the difficulty 

 that is placed in the way of subsequent writers when an author of 

 repute has once lent the weight of his name to an erroneous hypo- 

 thesis, for although in the larval state it had been separated from the 

 nearly allied species by Albin, Rosel and De Geer, it had always been 

 confounded with those species in the perfect state, in consequence of 

 the exceedingly small difference between the images. Professor 

 King, of Berlin, when distinguishing between the various species in 

 his ' Versuch einer Darstellung der Familien und Arten der Blatt- 

 wespen Gattung Cimbex, Fabr.,' n)ight have recognised Cimbex 

 femorata as a distinct species, by giving due weight to the distin- 

 guishing characteristics of the larva; instead of which he has confused 

 it with C. femorata, L., lutea, L., and sylvarum, Fahr., and has named 

 this imaginary species Cimbex variabilis. In proof of the correctness 

 of this view he points to the discordant statements of those authors 

 who had described the metamorphoses of connata or femorata. We 

 are quite willing to allow that these statements are very confused, and 

 that many authors are either obscure or incorrect in their descriptions; 



SECOND SEBIES — VOL. IV. 2 I 



