220 (February, 
cincta is identical and occurs in Finland among junipers (neither fulva nor cincta 
is included in Mr. Smith’s synonymy) ; and of Nomada baccata, all that is to be 
found at “Ap. Bor. Revis. 281” is a List of Species in which “ N. baccata, Sm.” 
occurs! These strike me as scarcely favourable specimens of “ judicious selection.” 
Amongst the Aculeata, of all other groups, are found the most remarkable 
phases of insect development and (I may add) of insect intelligence and civilization. 
Ants and bees are Anglo-Saxons amongst insects. Ope would expect then to find 
in the Catalogue numerous references to accounts of the habits and economy ; but 
I do not see anything to indicate which of the authors cited have worked out the 
life-histories of species; such guides as (ov.), (larv.), (devel.), (econ.), (anat.), &c., 
are entirely absent. I fancy indeed that the references of this kind are undesirably 
few. Réaumnr is cited, but rarely; Swammerdam, Huber, and other illustrious 
names of the present and past generations are conspicuous only by their absence. 
I rejoice, however, to find that John Ray’s account of the honey-bee has not been 
overpassed ; though it might be supposed, from the form of the citation, that “le 
premier véritable naturaliste du régne animal” had anticipated the Linnean system 
of nomenclature; lest any one should suggest that for the last century and more 
the world has been in error, it may be well to observe that Ray’s “Apis domestica” 
is no more the scientific name of the hive-bee than is the “Apis Matina” of Horace 
or the “ Apis Cecropia” of Virgil. But great as is my admiration for Ray, I think 
some other works might advantageously have been referred to; and I may take 
this opportunity of calling attention to Biitschli’s paper, “ Zur Entwicklungs- 
geschichte der Biene” in the 20th vol. of the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche 
Zoologie, where, to quote the Zoological Record for 1870, “‘the author enters very — 
minutely into the development of the various internal and external organs of the 
larva of Apis mellifica, from the earliest obtainable embryo.” This ought to throw 
some light upon the endosmosis-theory of Major Munn (see Proc. Ent. Soc. 1870, 
pp. XXiv.—xxviii.). y 
The next point is the incompleteness of the synonymy. For instance, are not | 
Scolia 4-guttata and Sirex pacca, Fab., Sapyga 4-punctata, Panz., and 8. varia, \ 
Farg., all identical with Sapyga 5-punctata (p. 5)? yet none of these are mentio: } 
Are not Trypoxylon atratum and Pelopeus unicolor, Fab., Psen pallipes, Spin., an Y 
P. serraticornis, Jur., all synonyms of Psen ater (p.19)? Are not Crabro varial ip 
Schr., and Philanthus semicinctus, Panz., referable to Cerceris ornata (p. 20) P 
not Vespa spinipes, Oliv., Pterochilus dentipes and tinniens, Scheef.= Od 
melanocephalus (p. 21)? Are not Vespa 4-cincta, Fab., V. gazella, Panz., V. yu ') 
P. signata (p. 28)? Are not Apis rufa, Christ, and Melitta picea, Kirby—Sphee 
gibbus (p. 24) ? And is not Andrena 4-punctata, Fab. = A. Hattorfiana (p. 26) |) 
So at least we were told in the British Museum Catalogue! It cannot t 4 
Christ, and 0. tricinctus, Scheef. = O. trifasciatus ? Is not Prosopis atrata, Fa. i 
\ 
all these determinations of the older authors’ species have since been pro 
correct! If not, it follows that the synonyms in the present Cataloone are h 
selection from what might have been given. t 
Crabro hyalinus, Shuck., a synonym of C. luteipalpis (p. 13)? Are nov Yp. 
similis and piceus, Wesm. = 8. gibbus (p. 24) P Are not Andrena fulva, cin ‘ 
clypearis, Nyland., synonyms of A. nigriceps, pubescens, and fucata re d 
But to leave the older authors, and come nearer to our own . *. 
‘ 
