196 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HIST, SOCIETY, Vol. XXVIII. 
determinations given of them above are probably correct. It is almost impos- 
sible, however, to name, for certain, g @ of this section without special pre- 
paration of the specimens, the actual apex of the abdomen being nearly always 
imperfectly exposed. 
72. Osmia dimidiata, Morawitz.—4 @ @, Enzeli (P), 8th-14th June. 
73. Anthidium florentinum, F.—2 & %, Enzeli(P), 10th-23rd July. 
2 2 9, Talish (P), 5th-10th July. 
1 2, Qazvin (P), 17th July. 
74. Anthidium strigatum, Panzer.— 1 2, Baquba (M), 27th July. 
The specimen is below the usual size, and its ground colour, instead of being 
simply black, is partly rufescent both on the thorax and abdomen. Probably 
this may be an individual aberration, but it may again be characteristic of a 
special local race. I do not think the peculiarity is “ specific.” [Captain Evans 
took a ¢ near Basrah on 12th April 1919.] 
75. [Anthidium tessellatum,K1.—1 4 ,Tanooma (M),Lieut. Harwood, ‘‘October.”’] 
76. Stelis pheoptera, Kirby.—1 9, Talish (P), 10th July. 
1 9, near Basrah (M), 6th April 1919. 
The Persian specimen was very much larger than the Mesopotamian. 
77. [Stelis signata, Latr.—l @ near Basrah, 10th April 1919.—Captain Evans. } 
78. Lithurgus chrysurus, Fonsc.—3 & 8,4 2 9, Enzeli (P), 15th-17th June. 
79. Lithurgus tibialis, Morawitz.— 1 &, Khaniqin (M), Ist August. 
This specimen agrees exactly with Morawitz’s description. In May 18961 
took at Dakrur in Egypt a ¢ which was determined for me by Prof. Friese, no: 
doubt correctly, as belonging to this species. But it was a much smaller speci- 
men than that here recorded, and the paradoxical characters of its hind legs 
(perhaps only for that reason) appear to me not quite so well developed. In 
the Figure below (Fig. 5) I have tried to give the exact outline of the right hind 
leg in Captain Buxton’s specimen, when so placed that its inner side almost 
directly faces the object glass of the microscope. (The legs are clothed, rather 
thinly, with white hairs, which are very long and fine in the angle between the 
femora and tibiz, much shorter and more bristle-like on the metatarsus, but I 
have not attempted to show this pilosity in the mich ) 
As usual in Lithurgus spp., 
the ¢ genitalia are extremely 
small for the sizeof the insect. 
I notice that in this species the 
interval which separates the pos- 
terior ocelli from each other is at 
least twice as great as that 
between each of them and the 
nearest compound eye. This is 
not the case in chrysurus, where 
the difference in length between 
the corresponding spaces is very 
slight. 
When viewed from behind the 
hind tibize are seen to be not only 
dilated, but very incrassate, only, 
however, about half as much so as 
the femora. 
Fig. 5. Hind-leg of L. tibialis @, a coxa. 
b. trochanter, c. femur, d. tibia, e metatar-. 
sus. 
