224 [February, 
with ‘Pauline Frederic!” Thanks, however, to Wocke and Zeller, we have been 
spared this shock, for the present. Space will not permit me to argue the question 
here ; I will therefore only observe that something more than the blandishments 
of Miss Pauline will be required to reconcile me to Lycena Minimus, with or 
without the capital M. The Catalogue under review contains abundant intrinsic 
evidence that Mr. Smith has not adopted Dr. Staudinger’s view; and I conclude 
that Passalecus and Colletes are made feminine only by an oversight. 
A more difficult question arises as to the gender of Celiorys. Apparently, the 
unvaried habit has been to treat it as feminine, probably because the species first 
included in it had already feminine trivial names—e. g., 4-dentata—being brought 
from Apis or Anthophora—or because the Greek noun which enters into the compo- 
sition of the word is feminine. It is to be regretted that Latreille did not write 
Ovycelia ; or, if he was bent on putting the cart before the horse, Celiowia would 
have been better than Celiorys. As having some bearing on this point, I may 
refer to the observations on the generic name Trachys by Dr. Kraatz, Col. Hefte, 
vi. 31; see also p. 116. 
Whilst on the subject of gender, I may note two or three slips in the citations 
of authors. Thus, p. 11, Linné wrote Sphea mystacea, not mystaceus; p. 20, Rossi 
wrote Crabro 5-fasciatus, not 5-fasciata. And the shade of the Rector of Barham 
must blush at having attributed to him a Melitta rubicundus (p. 24), and look 
uneasily at Melitta 4-notatus (p. 25) and M. minutissimus (p. 26); for the latter of 
which a wrong page also is cited. 
Here also is the place to remark upon the anomaly of our having a Crabro 
leucostoma (p. 14) and a Crabro chrysostomus (p. 16). Many will be apt to think 
that both these specific names should terminate alike, either both -mus, or both 
-ma. I shall perhaps be told that—without going the length of Dr. Standinger’s 
proposition, and whatever chrysostomus may be, whether noun substantive or 
adjective—leucostoma is a noun substantive, “ white-mouth,” not an adjective, 
**white-mouthed ;” and it is possible that, in support of this, I may be referred to 
H. M. M., vol. 5, where an attempt was made to shew that Acanthosoma is a neuter 
noun, and not a feminine adjective. Far be it from me to suggest a doubt as to 
the soundness of that argument! but I prefer to look at our leucostoma historically, 
and my “ historic conscience’”’ tells me that we ought to write Crabro leucostomus. 
The name originated with Linné, who described the insect as Sphew leucostoma. 
Now, though the Greek word is masculine (which doubtless led Mr. Smith into 
the above mentioned misquotation of Sphex mystaceus), Linné makes his genus 
Sphew feminine throughout, perhaps to correspond with Vespa. Thus we have 
Sphex vaga, S. fusca, 8. clypeata, and so on. It is true we have Sphew fjigulus ; 
and as the noun jigulus was taken for the trivial name of one species, a noun 
leucostoma may have been taken for the trivial name of another species; and 
certainly Fabricius, when he removed the insect to the genus Crabro, did not write 
Crabro leucostomus. I fancy, however, that the specific name leucostoma was, with 
Linné, the feminine gender of the coined adjective leucostomus. 
I have already remarked upon the name Celiowys ; and, as a matter of choice, 
some might have preferred Prionocnemis to Priocnemis. But on the whole the 
nomenclature of the Aculeata is pretty free from malformations and barbarisms. 
With reference to the correction, in scientific names, of slips of the pen in 
spelling, and misprints, see the observations in Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1870, pp. 85-87. 
—— ee 
