192 
ANNOTATED LISTS OF ACULEATE HYMENOPTERA (EXCEPT 
HETEROGYNA) AND CHRYSIDS RECENTLY COLLECTED 
IN MESOPOTAMIA AND NORTH-WEST PERSIA. 
BY 
F. D. Morice, M.4A., F.z.S., 
(ForMERLY PresIDENT OF THE ENTOMOLoGICaL Society or Lonpon, 
(With eight Text Figures.) 
(Continued from p. 828, Vol. X XVII.) 
29, Andrena bimaculata, Kirby var.—l1 6, Resht (P). 18th February. 
According to Schmiedeknecht’s tabulation in Apid. Europ. This should be 
basalis, Sichel, and it is coloured exactly according to Sichel’s description. It 
can, however, have nothing to do with albicrus, of which Sichel supposed basalis 
to be a variety. 
Having examined the genitalia, I feel sure that this specimen (and probably 
basalis also!) is merely one of the many highly coloured forms of bimaculata 
which are common in most Mediterranean districts, and occur exceptionally 
even in England (decorata, Sm., etc.) though there they seem to appear only in 
the second brood. (I have taken one at Wisley (Surrey) in August, which is 
very nearly as red as Captain Buxton’s specimen). Magrettiana Schmied, 
which I found abundant near Naples in March and April, and a ¢ given to me 
(I believe by Perez) as atrorubricaia, Dours, seem to be also local varieties of 
bimaculata. I have met with still more highly coloured forms in Tunisia but 
T do not doubt that these also may be referred to bimaculata, K. 
30. Andrena thoracica, F.—8 3 do, Resht (P), 1 9, 11th-18th February. 
1 3,1 Q, Enzeli (P), 14th-19th June. 
31. Andrena gwynana, Kirby.—2 2 9, Resht (P), 25th-27th February. . 
32. Andrena lucens, Imboff.—5 3 2, Resht (P), 11th-18th February. 
33. Andrena dorsata, Kirby.—1 ¢, Resht (P), 18th February. 
34. Andrena-flavipes, Pauzer. (—fulvicrus, K.),1 3, Resht (P), 18th Febr., 
1 3,1 o, Menjil (P), 30th March, 7th April. 
836 d6,8 2 &, Amara (M), 24th March to 
18th April. 
13 2 9, Amara (M), 14th May to 19th June. 
The March-April Amara specimens are smaller than either those from Persia 
or the May-June Amara 2 2, but their g 3 have the peculiarly ‘“ notched ” 
stipites of the genital armature by which a flavipes 3 may, I believe, always be 
identified. (cf. Tr. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1899, p. 237, where the species is called 
‘‘fulvicrus.”) The Persian 3 ¢_ shew the same character, but unluckily no 
dg @ were taken with the May-June Amara? 9, and some (but not all) of 
these differ from normal flavipes 3 ¢ in having the hind femora and tibize more 
or less testaceous. But I believe this character is not specific. Something 
like it occurs with the ‘‘ second broods’’ of other Andvena spp. (e.g. dorsata) 
In my opinion all the specimens here recorded should be referred to one species, 
viz., flavipes. 
Of all Andrena spp. flavipes is perhaps the most widely distributed, and its 
main distinguishing characters seem to be exceedingly constant in all districts. 
Unless a specimen is badly * rubbed ’ there can be little difficulty in determining 
it. 
35. Andrena hypopolia, Pérez.—3 2 9-, Qazvin (P), 7th July. 
36. Andrena, sp?—2 dd, 2 9 Y, Amara (M), 24th March-April. 
I had thought that these specimens also were hypopolia, but after examining 
the ¢ genitalia I now doubt it. Unfortunately all the specimens are more ox 
less rubbed and faded, so I think it most prudent to leave them nameless, 
