1872.3 221 
(p. 29)? Is not A. barbatula, Zett. =A. albicrus (p. 30)? and A. subopaca, 
Nyland. = A. parvula ? Is not Nomada Marshamella, Nyland.=N. Lathburiana 
(p. 33)? and N. neglecta, Schaef. = N. Roberjectiana? And is not Megachile 
fulviventris, Zett., a synonym of M. Willughbiella (p. 36) ? 
Again, is Thomson wrong when he gives Crabro afinis, Wesm., as a synonym 
of C. pubescens? Is Gerstiicker wrong when he gives Ccliowys jissidens and 
fraterna, Foérst., as synonyms of (. 4-dentata ? and C. trinacria and diglypha, Forst., 
as synonyms of C. rufescens? Andis Schenck wrong when he gives C. apiculata, 
Forst. (nec Nyland.), and divergens, Forst., as synonyms of C. simples ? 
Or to turn to British authors—Why is Moses Harris ignored? What has 
become of the Vespa superba, exultans, petulans, parietum and veeator of Harris ? 
of the Apis flavicollis of Sowerby ? of the Melitta lugubris, nudiuscula, contigua, 
and digitalis, of the Eucera linguaria, Apis 6-cincta and Leeana, of Kirby? I find 
no reference to any of these. 
And lastly, what has become of the Crabro vestitus and scutellaris, Vespa 
borealis, Hyleus plantaris, Sphecodes pellucidus, Andrena rubricata, distincta, atra, 
estiva, apicata, lacinia, articulata and nigrifrons, Nomada vidua and inquilina, 
Megachile albiventris, Osmia hirta, Apathus nemorum, Bombus montanus, monticola 
and jflavonigrescens, of Smith? Here are more than a score of names, each pub- 
lished by Mr. Smith for a British insect—yet in this Catalogue of British Insects 
not one of them is mentioned! No doubt these names all disappear as synonyms, 
but surely Mr. Smith should not have consigned them pauper-like to an undistin- 
guished grave, but have given them decent burial, and have indicated the last 
resting-place of these, his own creations. 
If it be said that, by consulting the British Museum Catalogues, the where- 
abouts of most of them may be discovered, I readily agree. But then we arrive at 
this dilemma. The synonymy of this Catalogue was either intended to be complete 
in itself, or it was not; if completeness were the intention, why these omissions P 
if not, why have done more than simply refer to the prior Catalogues? Why 
print any synonymy at all, except the corrections of previous errors? In short, 
it seems to me that of synonymy we have either vastly too much, or somewhat 
too little. 
This seems a fitting place to notice that Costa has recently disputed Smith’s 
conclusions as to the synonymy of certain species of Cerceris. According to Costa 
(Ann. Mus. Nap., vol. 5, published in 1869, but to which no reference is made in 
the Catalogue), Philanthus interruptus, Panz., is distinct from Cerceris 5-fasciata ;* 
P. 5-cinctus, Panz., is a g var. of Cerceris arenaria, and is not attributable to C. 
5-fasciata ; and P. sabulosus and 4-cinctus, Panz., are not the sexes of one species, 
his P. sabulosus belonging in fact to Cerceris emarginata. 
Some of Mr. Smith’s citations of synonymy are erroneous in form. Take e. g. 
Odynerus parietum (p. 21); it would be supposed that Wesmael, Zetterstedt, St. 
Fargeau, Saussure, Smith, and ‘Thomson all wrote the specific name parietinus, 
after Curtis. Take again Halictus wanthopus (p. 25); it would seem as though St. 
Fargeau, Smith, Nylander, and Shuckard all adopted Curtis’s name Lasioglossum 
Ty bes Smith’s references to Rossi are unfortunate. In the Cat. Brit. Foss. Hym. p. 192, 
we find “Crabro 5-fasciatus, Rossi, Faun. Etrus. Mant. i. Cee 207”; in the present Catalogue, 
““C. 5-fasciata, Rossi, F. E. i. 139.” The true reference is Gee geciatets, Rossi, Mant. i. 139 
(and if the number of the species is to be added, 307).—J. W. D 
