1872.| 219 
quotations by an examination of the original volumes. It struck me as curious 
that the Scoliide should be included in a monograph of Apide, and as still more 
curious, when, on referring to the Museum “ Catalogue of British Fossorial 
Hymenoptera, Formicidz and Vespide,” I found that, throughout the Mutillide, 
Scoliide (or Scoliade as they are there called), and Sapygide, the citations of 
Nylander are uniformly “‘ Ap. Boreal.” When I find in the British Museum 
Catalogue ‘‘ Tiphia femorata, Nyland. Ap. Boreal. 19, 1”, and in the Entomological 
Society’s Catalogue “ Tiphia femorata, Nyl. Ap. Bor. 19”, whilst the true referer'ce 
is “ Tiphia femorata, Nyl. Scol. Bor. 21”; and when I find “ Osmia wanthomelana, 
Nyland. Ap. Boreal. Suppl. p. 270, 5” re-appear as “ Nyland. Ap. Bor. Supp. 270,” 
whilst the true reference is ‘‘ Nyland. Ap. Bor. Revis. 270”, I am afraid the con- 
clusion is irresistible that the citations of 1871 have been copied from those of 
1858 and 1855 without verification by inspection of the original papers. I subjoin 
the references to Nylander’s paper for our eight British species belonging to the 
three families Mutillide, Scoliide and Sapygide. 
Morinnipa. Mutilla ewropea, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 8. 
»  ephippium, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 13. 
Myrmosa melanocephala, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 16. 
Methoca ichnewmonides, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 19. 
Sconupm.  Tiphia femorata, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 21. 
»  minuta, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 24. 
| Sapyeip#.  Sapyga punctata, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 25. 
| »  clavicornis, Nyl. Not. Fenn. i. 27. 
To pass on to the Bees, it is perhaps scarcely surprising that confusion should 
arise between “Ap. Bor.”, “Ap. Bor. Supp.”, and ‘‘Ap. Bor. Revis.”’ The following 
| | may be adduced as examples, and a dozen others might be added : 
\ p. 24. Sphecodes Geoffroyellus, Ap. Bor. Revis. 194 should be S. Geoffrellus, Ap. Bor. 194. 
‘ 36. Megachile Leachella, Ap. Bor. 276 A Ap. Bor. Revis. 276. 
5 circumeincta, Ap. Bor. 103 a Ap. Bor. Supp. 103. 
38. Osmia xanthomelana, Ap. Bor. Supp. 270 » Ap. Bor. Revis. 270. 
Many of the references to “ Ap. Bor. Revis.” might well have been omitted 
altogether. The object of the Catalogue, as explained in the Report of the Council 
(see Proc. Ent. Soc. 1867, p. exii.), is, by a judicious selection of citations, to refer 
the student to the best descriptions or figures of each species, and to the authors 
whose observations have contributed what is known of the habits and economy of 
the insects. Yet many of the passages in “ Ap. Bor. Revis.” to which reference is 
made are mere cursory observations on the species. If any one will refer to the 
pages cited under any of the following—Colletes succincta and marginata, Sphecodes 
subquadratus, Halictus tumulorum, cylindricus and leucopus, Andrena florea, nigri- 
Peps and pubescens, Nomada baccata, Celiowys rufescens, Megachile argentata, 
\Chelostoma florisomne, Heriades truncorum, Osmia rufa and fulviventris, Bomous 
terrestris and lucorwm—it will be seen in a moment what I mean. The only remark 
Nylander makes (in the paper cited) about Celiowys rufescens is, that it seems to 
e identical with his C. apiculata, and occurs in England and France; of Andrena 
nigriceps we are simply told that A. fulva is a synonym; of A. pubescens, that A. 
é 
| 
