6 Myron Harmon Swenk 
Even the puncturation varies considerably in degree though 
rarely in pattern, being usually coarser in the male. There is, 
however, beneath all their superficial differences, almost always 
some clue to clearly show the consanguinity of the specimens. 
As to the history of the genus a word might be said. Among 
the numerous species included under the genus Apis by Linnaeus 
in the tenth edition of his Systema Naturae, the first mentioned 
species referable to the genus Colletes as now restricted is Apis 
succincta. This species was retained by Linnaeus in the genus 
Apis in the twelfth edition of his monumental work and also in 
his Fauna Suecica, second edition. In 1781, however, Fabricius 
in his Species Insectorum referred Apis succincta to his genus 
Andrena, which he had erected six years previously, continuing 
this generic disposition of the species in his later works, and be- 
ing followed by Petagna, Olivier, Cederhjelm, and Lamarck, 
while other authors continued to refer to the species as Apis 
succincta. 
In 1802 appeared Latreiile’s Histoire Naturelle des Fourmis, 
and the first four parts of his Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés 
et des Insectes, while in the same year Kirby’s Monographia 
Apum Angliae was published. In Latreille’s papers a bee con- 
sidered by him to be the Apis succincta of Linnaeus is referred to 
a new genus, Colletes, while in Kirby’s monograph the same spe- 
cies is placed, along with other bees, in the genus A/elitta, which 
he established for their reception, it being furthermore the first 
mentioned species in the genus. These three publications ap- 
pearing in the same year and bearing no date-marks further than 
1802 make the ascertainment of priority of publication an ex- 
ceedingly difficult, if not impossible, matter. Granting Kirby’s 
paper priority and adhering strictly to the first species rule would 
necessitate the supplanting of Colletes by the name Melitta, a 
view favored by Mr. Charles Robertson, who informs me that 
Monographia Apum Angliae, i, page 32, has priority over His- 
toire Naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes, part 3, page 372, 
and that he thinks the first mentioned species of the original au- 
thor has priority as a representative of the genus, and that no 
subsequent author has any right to change the type. But, as 
48 
