,818 JOURNAL, BOHJ BAY NAl URAL HIST. SOCIETY, Vol. XXT II. 



I have little doubt that this is the true Sanguinicollis Kl. Possibly continua;'¥. 

 may be its 9 , in which case the Fabrician name would have priority. 



3. Mutilla (Myrmosa) erythrocephala, Latr. — 1 $ Khaniqin (M), 1st August. 



4. Mutilla catanensis, Rossi. — 1 $ , Baquba (M), 27th July. 



1 2 > Baghdad (M), 10th September. 

 [1 5 , at or near Amara (M), 7th September 

 1918 — Captain Evans]. 

 6. Mutilla chrysopUhalma Kl. — 4 J cT , Amara (M), 20th June, 17th July, 



7th September. [1 (5 at or near Amara 

 (M), 7th September 1918 — Captain Evans]. 

 There is some mystery about this and the last species. It will be noticed that 

 l)oth my correspondents found only d" c5' of chrysophthalma and only 2 2 oi 

 ■catanensis. Furthermore, Captain Evans took his chrysophthalma J and, 

 catanensis § together, and, at the time, was under the impression that they 

 -were paired, or on the point of pairing, though they were not actually paired 

 when he took them out of the net ! 



It seems, however, to be well established, that the proper J of catanensis 

 ia floralis, Klug, a form which, though evidently akin to chrysophthalma, is 

 superficially at least, quite unlike it. Nor are the $ $ of catanensis and chry- 

 sophthalma so much aUke that there can be any difficulty in distinguishing them. 

 And in the Natural History Museum at South Kensington I find (a) a specimen 

 of floralis actually paired with a $ of catanensis, and (6) a <S like those from 

 Amara similarly actually paired with a $ of chrysophthalma, both these pairs 

 having been taken on the same day and at the same place — namely, on April 

 14th, 1895, at Aden, by Colonel Yerbury. 



This Amara S , which I suppose to be the proper mate not of catanensis 2 , 

 but of chrysophthalma, Klug, seems to be undescribed. So far as actual " struc- 

 ture " is concerned it appears to me to have all the most characteristic features 

 enumerated by Andre {Species VIII, p. 109) in his very complete and satisfac- 

 tory description of catanensis J (z= floralis). Nevertheless the two forms are 

 separable at a glance, though their diflferences are almost entirely matters of 

 coloration and pilosity. Thus in catanensis (floralis) the wings are entirely 

 fuscous ; the thorax is largely red ; the pilosity is mostly yellowish, not strongly 

 contrasting with the red colour of the abdomen, so that Andre describes the 

 second and following segments, as uniformly clothed with " pubescence d'un 

 ferrugineux dore, sans bande de pubescence blanche." In chrysophthalma 

 on the contrary the bases of the wings are quite clear and colourless ; the thorax 

 ia entirely black ; and the whole pilosity of the insect is pure white, forming 

 perfectly distinct and well defined silvery fasciae across the base and apex of 

 the 2nd segment and the apices only of the three following segments (only after 

 segments 5 can it be described as clothing the integument uniformly, without 

 distinct apical bands") 



6. Mutilla dalmatica Andre (?). — This species was not met with by Captain 

 Buxton, but I have been kindly presented by Lieut. Harwood with two 



$ 2 and a J which apparently belong to it. He took them with several 

 other specimens of both sexes near Baghdad in October 1918. 



The S seems to be undescribed. It is much smaller than chrysophthalma, 

 but otherwise very like it, having similar pilosity, (though the abdominal fasciae 

 are somewhat less conspicuous) and wings with clear hyaline bases. But the 

 tuberculation of the scutellum is merely rounded, not acutely conical. 

 And only the two first segrnents of the abdomen are red, the rest of it, as well 

 as the whole head and thorax being black. (Long, about 10 mm. Exp. alar. 

 16 mm.) 



7. Mutilla littoralis, Petagn. — V&t grisescens, September. 



Id, Amara, 27th October 1918. 



