1913.] 253 



some good captures : Calucoris alpesfn's Mey. spariDgly on raspberry, and 

 Phylus palliceps Fieb. on oak. From various trees came Anthocoris nemorum 

 Linn., A. nemoralis Fab , botb coniiiionly, and one specimen of Microphysa 

 pselaptnformis Curt. Psallus lepidus Fieb. was very common on ash all over 

 the district; P. ambiguus Fall, not rare on hazel, P. betuleti Fall, fairly 

 plentiful on birch, P. varians H. S. common on oaks, and P. variabilis Fall, 

 was also common. A pair of Plesiodema pinetellum Zett. were probably the 

 most interesting of mj captures. . Mr. E. A. Butler has kindly helped me with 

 the names of some of the above. — Jas. Murray, 2 Balfour Road, Carlisle : 

 October lOth, 1918. 



On Halictus arnoldi E. Sounders. — This name was given to a few speci- 

 mens of Halictus^ captured near Eastbourne by Mr. Arnold in 1908, by 

 Edward Saunders, who considered them to belong to an undescribed species. 

 In xA.rnold's collection three examples, two males and one female, represented 

 the species, a-nd, after a careful examination some years ago, I came to 

 the conclusion that these were certainly only slight varieties of the widely- 

 distributed H. minutissimus Kirby, and by no means more aberrant than others 

 taken by myselt at colonies of this minute bee. These males were two of tlie 

 three specimens which Saunders had before him when he described the species, 

 but the female, as I found out subsequently, was not the type of that sex, but 

 must have been placed with the males by Arnold himself, since the only one 

 mentioned by Saunders is the example in his collection now at S. Kensington. 

 The female in the Arnold collection is a rather large example of minutissimus, 

 with' the basal abdominal segment more punctured than is usual, but less so 

 than in some other examples that I have, and it does not agree with the 

 description of arnoldi. The two males (cotypes) have a slightly immature 

 appearance (reddish) as is not rare in minutissimus and some other Halicti and, 

 as is well known, this immaturity is frequently correlated with other slight 

 abnormalities in sculpture. The chief distinction given for arnoldi was the 

 shorter antennal joints, but this appearance was, I believe, largely, if not 

 entirely, due to the antennae being stuck down on card. On removing the 

 two specimens from the gum and cleaning and straightening the antennae, a 

 notable difference was produced in the appearance of the joints. The genital 

 armature on dissection of the specimens appears to me identical with that of 

 minutissiynus. When at the British Museum on other business some time ago, 

 at the last moment before leaving it occurred to me to examine the type of 

 arnoldi, and I then for the first time became aware that the female example in 

 Arnold's collection was not the type of that sex. Though unable to examine 

 the actual type very minutely or to compare it thoroughly with other forms, 

 it appeared to me certain that it could not be rightly mated with the described 

 male, but belonged sensu restricto to another group in Halictus. Probably the 

 2 type of arnoldi will prove to be a small and aberrant example of nitidius- 

 cuius. I have looked at the small black Halicti collected by Arnold at. 

 Hellingly near Eastbourne and dated August 14th, 1908, and I find that these 

 consist of all the examples of arnoldi Saunders and the 9 ascribed to this by 

 Arnold, ordinary minutissiynus not placed with the former, and a number of 

 minutus and 7iitidiusculus. It is rather suggestive that a male of the latter sent 

 to Saunders was returned with this name and ''small'' written on the label. 

 It therefore seems probable that Saunders was misled, partly by the appearance 



