wy fe ay 
1872.) 223 
(var.) or some other abbreviation. For instance, Apis ligustica (p. 42) is rightly 
enough treated as not specifically distinct from A. mellifica; but no one will say 
that A. ligustica is an unqualified or absolute synonym of A. mellijica. At p. 40, 
the three forms described by Kirby as Apis Rossiella, Francisana, and subterranea, 
are all given simply as the $ of Apathus campestris; should not one have been 
indicated as the typical male, and the other two as varieties? And at p. 35, is 
not Nylander’s Celiowys hebescens (which somehow has got converted into hebes) 
sufficiently distinct from the normal C. rufescens to require the addition of (var.) ? 
When the sexes of the same species have been simultaneously described as 
distinct, I have always understood that when the two come to be re-united, and so 
require only one specific name, that of the male is adopted, and the female rejected. 
Dr. Knaggs’s gallantry has led him to suggest that under such circumstances, the 
name of the female should be retained. (See Proc. Ent. Soc. 1868, pp. xliii., xliv. ; 
Trans. Ent. Soc. 1871, p. 345). Mr Smith sometimes adopts the trivial name of 
the male, sometimes that of the female. . 
Thus, confining our attention to a decad from the 2nd vol. of the Mon. Ap. 
Angl., we have— 
Melitta fulvicornis, p. 67,5 —= MU. levigata, p. 75,2... HALIcTUS L&VIGATUS. 
M. pilosula, p-. 164, $= M. Gwynana, p. 120,92... ANDRENA GWYNANA. 
M. atriceps, p.114,3= M. tibialis, p. 107,9... A. ATRICEPS. 
M. Lewinella, p- 149, ¢ = M. picicornis, p. 123,29... A. PICICORNIS, 
M. pubescens, p- 141, $= WM. fuscipes, p. 186,92... A. PUBESCENS. 
M. denticulata, p. 183, ¢ = M. Listerella, p. 137, ... A. DENTICULATA. 
M. contijua, p. 140, d= M. fulvicrus, p.138,9... A. FULVICRUS. 
M. Coitana, p. 147,3 = M. Shawella, p.160,2... A. Corrana. 
M. subincana, p- 158, ¢ = M. connectens, p. 157, 9 ... A. CONNECTENS. 
HM. Collinsonana, p.153,g—= M. provima, pp. 146,?... A. Conninsonana. 
Out of these ten cases, it will be seen that Mr. Smith adopts the g name in 
five and the ? in five, and I believe a like impartiality will be found to have been 
exercised, if all the instances of the kind which occur in the Catalogue were 
tabulated. Priority of place in the volume manifestly has not had any weight ; 
and what the principle of selection is, I cannot discover; though I have no doubt 
that a good reason exists for each particular selection. 
The Aculeata, with their males, females, and neuters, may be supposed to call 
special attention to questions of gender. I am one of those who think that the 
name of a genus is a noun substantive, with which an adjectival trivial name should 
be made to agree in gender. Consequently, when the Catalogue of Neuroptera was 
in progress, I was anxious to substitute Lestes barbarus for Lestes barbara (at p. 16); 
for surely if any generic names be masculine, Lestes must be one of them. So also 
in the present Catalogue, I note that Passalecus (p. 18) and Colletes (p. 23) are 
nouns substantive of masculine gender ; and consequently, that we ought to read 
Passalecus corniger (not cornigera),* Colletes succinctus, cunicularius, marginatus, 
and Daviesanus (not succincta, &c.). Iam aware that Staudinger (see the Introd. 
to the Cat. Lepidop. Eur., p. xiii. ed. 1871) wishes to consider every specific name, 
once published, as a proper name, and would write Lycena Minimus, comparing it 
Ze te a Ent. Ann. 1872, p. 102, Mr. Smith appears to refer this species to the genus Diodontus. 
