214 [February 
SaPpyGA CLAVICORNIS (Mr, Smith). Sapy@a CLAVIcoRNIS (No. 1). 
Apis clavicornis, Lin. S.N. i. 953. Apis clavicornis, Lin. 8.N.i. 953 ; 
Scolia prisma, Fab. BH. S. ii. 236. Sapyga clavicornis, Cur. B.E. xi. pl. 532; 
Masaris crabronifornis, Panz. F.G. 47, Shuck, Foss. Hym. 45; Smith, Brit. 
22, 2. Sapyga prisma, Klug, Mon. Foss. Hym. 51; Thoms. Opusc. Ent. 
Siric. 63 ; Lind. Obs. 303; Wesm. Hym. 210. Scolia prisma, Fab. EH. S. ii. 236; 
Foss. Belg. 25; St. Farg. Hym. iii. 566. Sapyga prisma, Klug, Mon. Sirie. 63 ; 
S. clavicornis, Cur. B. H. xi. pl. 532; Lind. Obs. 303 ; St. Farge. Hym. iii. 566 ; 
Shuck. Foss. Hym.; Smith, Brit. Foss. Wesm. Hym. Foss. Belg. 25, Masaris 
Hym. 52 ; Thoms. Opusce. Ant. 210. crabroniformis, Panz. F, G. 47, 22, 2. 
My next observation is that Mr. Smith does not always follow the order of 
time in his citations, even where (so far as I can see) no reason exists for deviating 
from chronological arrangement. For instance, under Tetramoriwm cespitum (p. 3), 
why should Nylander’s synonym Myrmica fuscula (1846) and Férster’s M. impura 
and modesta (1850) be cited before Latreille’s M. cespitum (1805)? And under 
Spilomena troglodytes (p. 17), why (in deviation from the plan even of generic 
chronology) should Stigmus troglodytes, Lind. (1829), be placed after Celia troglodytes, 
Shuck. (1837)? Under Nomada germanica (p. 88), why do N. ferruginata, Scheof., 
Nyland., and Thoms., precede Apis ferruginata, Kirby ? and under N. lineola (p. 34), 
why is N. cornigera, St. Farg. (1839), given precedence over Apis cornigera, Kirby 
(1802) ? But still more unaccountable are cases like Gorytes Fargei (p. 11), where 
Shuckard’s name (1837) is cited after the later references to the G. campestris of 
St. Fargeau, Dahlbom, Wesmael and Thomson; or like Melecta armata and Stelis 
aterrima (p. 35), where Kirby’s (1802) rejected names of punctata and punctatis- 
sima (which, by the way, should be punctulatissima) are cited at the head of the 
list, before Panzer’s earlier names of armata and aterrima (1799), which are by 
virtue of their priority retained for the species respectively. 
Again, though this is less important, in citing authors who employ the same 
generic and specific names, the order of date is not always preserved. Thus, 
under Sapyga clavicornis (vid. swp.), in referring to S. prisma, St. Fargean ought 
to precede Wesmael; under Apathus campestris and Bombus sylvarum (p. 40), 
Shuck. Brit. Bees (1866) should precede Thoms. Opusc. Ent. (1869) ; and through- 
out the Anthophila, Smith, Bees Gt. Brit. (1855) is very frequently, though not 
invariably, cited before Nyland. Ap. Bor. (1848). See also Halictus tumulorum 
(p. 24), where references to Smith and Thomson (1869) are placed before Smith 
(1855), Nylander (1852), and Shuckard (1866). 
Not unfrequently, a later name is preferred to an earlier one, without any 
indication of reason for the rejection of the earlier. For instance, Nomada armata 
(p. 33) ; Stephens’s name Kirbii (1835) is rejected, whilst Scheffer’s armata (1839) 
is adopted. So in Celiorys simplen (p. 35) ; Kirby’s name conica is passed over, 
and the reason is shewn by the words (nec Lin.) ; then follow, as synonyms, wmermis, 
Kirby (1802), and elongata, (St. Farg. 1841, though Mr. Smith cites only Gerst. 
1869), whilst the name adopted is simplex, Nylander (1852). 
Other instances in which an older name is rejected for a later one, without any 
reason being indicated, occur in Priocnenvis sepicola, p. 7, Gorytes laticinctus, p. 12, 
and Prosopis communis, p. 23. The first is the fuscus of Fabricius, but not of 
“~ 
