999, [February, 
< 
a 
tricingulum (which is misprinted trinagulum). And lastly, take Saropoda bimaculata 
(p. 39) ; the form of citation indicates that St. Fargeau, Smith, Curtis and Shuckard 
all followed Spinola in referring the insect to the genus Anthophora, but such is 
not the case. 
So also Evania variegata, Latr. and others (p. 8), should be Hvania variegata, 
Fab., Ceropales variegata, Latr. and others; Cemonus unicolor, Panz. F. G. 52, 24, 
should be Sphex unicolor; Hyleus dilatatus, Nyland. Ap. Bor. 94 (p. 23) should be 
Prosopis dilatata, Nyland. Ap. Bor. Revis. 188 ; Andrena denticulata, Nyland. (p. 29) 
should be A. Listerella, Nyland.; A. parvula, Smith (p. 80) should be A. minutula, 
Smith; A. wanthura, Nyland. (p. 31) should be A. chrysosceles, Nyland. (nec 
Kirby) ; Otlissa hemorrhoidalis, Nyland. (p. 31) should be Kirbya chrysura, Nyland. ; 
and Anthophora retusa, Nyland. Ap. Bor. 265 (p. 39) should be Megilla retusa, 
Nyland. Ap. Bor. Revis. 265. And in the top line of p. 25, the name Melitta 
seladonia is omitted before the reference to Kirby, Mon. Ap. Angl. ii. 57. 
Others of the citations are misleading, if not erroneous. Take e. g. Andrena 
Coitana (p. 80). Any one would suppose from the reference ‘Nyland. Ap. Bor. 
221”’ that Nylander recognised the species and adopted Kirby’s name for it ; but 
in truth Nylander confounded it with A. nana, and only mentions Coitana as a 
synonym of nana. Take again Odynerus trifasciatus (p. 21), under which we find a 
reference to “ Wesm. Odyn. Belg. 7” (it should be p. 27); so far from treating 
trifasciatus as a species, Wesmael refers it to O. parietum. 
At p. 27 of the Catalogue, under Andrena rose, we have the reference 
“ Melitta rose, Kirby, Mon. Ap. Angl. ii. 83,9,” and under Andrena florea, we have 
the reference “ Melitta rose, Kirby, Mon. Ap. Angl. ii. 85 (nec Panz.).” Does this 
mean that the insect which Kirby supposed to be the g of A. rose is in truth 
A. florea ? or that the form which Kirby at p. 85 calls “ Variety a” of A. rose is 
the Fabrician florea ? or what does it mean ? 
At p. 29, under Andrena picicornis, we have the reference “ M. Lewinella, 
Kirby, lib. cit. 149, 3,” and under A. denticulata, we have the reference ‘“ M. 
Lewinella, Kirby, lib. cit. 149, Sg (var.).” If Kirby had described a typical M. 
Lewinella, and a variety, I should have conjectured that Mr. Smith’s view was, 
that the typical form is the male of picicornis, and the variety not picicornis at 
all, but a ¢ var. of denticulata. But, on referring to the Monographia Apum 
Angliz, I find only one form of Lewinella described; and I am driven to the 
conclusion that (according to Mr. Smith) M. Lewwella is not only the g of pici- 
cornis, but is also a var. of denticulata—two forms which are not only treated as 
distinct species, but have no less than eight species placed between them. 
Again, at p. 39, under Anthophora retusa, we have the reference ‘‘ Dours, Mon. 
Anth. 172,” and under A. acervorwm, we have the reference ‘ A. retusa, Dours, 
Mon. Anth. 172 (var.).” Unfortunately, I have not this work at hand; and I can 
only conjecture that Dours confounds two forms under one name retusa, at the 
same time indicating one of the forms asa ‘‘ Var.” But if this be the true expla- 
nation, ought not the citations to have run as follows P— 
ANTHOPHORA RETUSA.—A. retusa (form. typ.), Dours, Mon. Anth. 172. 
ANTHOPHORA ACERVORUM.—A. retusa (var.), Dours, Mon. Anth. 172. 
In numerous cases, names are cited as absolute synonyms, whereas they belong 
to distinct races or forms, and this should have been indicated by the addition of 
ah A 
