318 HYMENOPTERA OF AMERICA. [PART I. 



the margin being quite a high crest, In 0. conformis it is only 

 slightly reflexed and a little canaliciilated, but not making a sharp 

 deep channel as in 0. Bravo. The tubercle of the head of the 

 males is also very characteristic. (We notice that such are found 

 in other species with strong canaliculate 2d segment as Ancidro- 

 eerus tuber culiceps.) 



Hab. The temperate Mexico. I caught 13 specimens in the 

 valleys of the Sierra Madre and near Mextitlan. 



fiud^.^. ■*& — * ty f —% 3.19. ©. amoi'iaais Say. — Niger, valde punctatus, abdominis 20 seg- 



.'AUk . vP&^U~sf<r6 m f) niento satis elongato, margine fortius punctato ; primo cupuliformi ; 



** 3 ^ i>"* " capitis punctis, pronoti margine antico, tegulis, macula subalari, post- 



"t* scutello, metanoti angulis, abdominis segmentorum limbo, nee non 



secundi maculis 2, tiavis. — %. Clypeo, maudibulis, antennis subtus, 



flavis. 



Eumenes anormis 1 Say, Long's 2d Exped. 1824, Append. 78 (II, 346, 3), 



9 (non £).— Say's Entomot. (Lb Costs), I, 234, 3 £ (non % ).— 



Sauss. Et. Vespid. I, 232 ; III, 340, 225. 

 Odyn. anormis Say, Boston Journ. I, 1837, 387, 5.— Say's Entomol. (Le 



Coktb), II, 767; 5. 

 Rhynchium anorme Sauss. Et. Vespid. Ill, 184. 

 Odyn. oculatus Say, Boston Journ. I, 1837, 385, 2 % . — Say's Entomol. 



Le Contr), II, 766, 2.— Sadss. Et. Vespid. I, 219, 113, % . — Cresson 



Amer. Ent. Trans. I, 1867, 387, 23. 

 Odyn. persecutor Sauss. Et. Vespid. Ill, 256, 133, pi. xiv, fig. 1, 92 (1854). 



Total length, 11 mm. ; wing, 7^ mm. 



Pronotum wide, its angles sharp ; post-scutel not elevated ; 

 metathorax having its lateral ridges sharp, but its cavity not 

 bordered by sharp edges, nor with well-defined limits. Abdomen 

 ovalo-conical ; its first segment cup-shaped, not so wide as the 



1 There can be no doubt, whatever, about the identity of this species 

 with 0. oculatus 9 , it being very well described by Say. He called it 

 anormis, because it has not the form of Eumenes, and he only classed it in 

 this genus because of the similar structure of its mouth, being unaware 

 that these two genera are not to be separately distinguished by the month. 

 And further he says (Bost. Journ.), "It is like the Oculatus Say." Besides, 

 lie took his female specimen for a male, which made him find some differ- 

 ence from Oculatus, which was described from a male. 



2 In some copies the antennae have been painted all yellow, by mistake. 

 The yellow color is only to be seen beneath when developed under the 

 flagellum. 



