NEW AKRANGEMENT OF BRITISH BEES. 169 



glossse are entire, as is also the case with Dasypoda, 

 from which Halktus is thus divided. In the Apidx, 

 he does not separate the cuckoo-hees, but with Latreille 

 intermixes Ccelioxys and Stelis with the artisan-bees, 

 although without retaining Latreille's convenient and 

 suitable name of Dasygasters, for this group of mecha- 

 nics. The same objection I take to his Scopulipedes as 

 that expressed above, relative to Latreille's. 



Precisely the same fault I find with the AndrenidcB of 

 Smith, as that urged above with respect to Westwood's. 

 He is more careful with his Apidce, his Cuculinm being 

 all genuine parasites, but he includes Ceratina with the 

 Daxygasters, with which it has no affinity of structure, 

 and only a slight analogy in the form merely of its ab- 

 domen witJiout its hairiness beneath, to that of Osmia, 

 from whose proximity he takes it to place it near 

 Heriades, when it is certainly intimately allied in every 

 respect with the Scopulipedes, and by reason of its sub- 

 clavate antennae might suitably be brought into juxta- 

 position with Panurgus, did not its obsolete paraglossae 

 and three submarginal cells interfere with its occupying 

 this position. To his Scopulipedes the same objection 

 is valid as that taken to Latreille's and Westwood's dis- 

 position of them. Amongst the social bees he separates 

 Bombus from Apis, by the intervention of Apathus, 

 which is scarcely consistent. 



It is in no spirit of captiousness that these objections 

 are made; they are deduced from collocations whose 

 conspicuous incoherence is patent to the most superficial 

 observation. The distribution \ have here introduced 

 has been made merely to ameliorate, and make more 

 cogent, what was so palpably defective and feeble. 



