152 z. bouCek 



(allopatric) but also that the yellow form is represented only by females, whilst 

 the generally more southern orange form occurs in both sexes. He mentions the 

 brightly orange-coloured females from North Africa where the males usually are 

 paler-coloured, more or less yellowish. This agrees with my findings, but I can add 

 that I have seen also a few males of the yellow form ('typical gigas') from the 

 Dalmatian island of Hvar, from Corfu and Penteli (near Athens) in Greece and 

 from the Samarkand district in Uzbekistan. In several cases I have seen both 

 forms from the same locality, as found by Nikolskaya (i960 : 206; Transcaucasia), 

 who described also some other aspects of the variation, including intermediates 

 between the two forms. 



The extent of the pale markings is also fairly variable and Klug (1814) based 

 on it, combined with the length of the ovipositor, his L. grandis and L. varia. In 

 the former, which agrees with the lectotype of gigas, the ovipositor generally reaches 

 the base of the first tergite and the pronotum is broadly bordered with yellow also 

 laterally. In his L. varia the ovipositor usually does not reach beyond the middle 

 of the first tergite and the pronotum is yellow only anteriorly and posteriorly. 

 Both forms came from the same locality (Rjeka) and because Mader found similar 

 populations on the near island of Krk and other places of the eastern Adriatic 

 coast, he tried (1936 : 289-290) to resuscitate the two Klug names from synonymy, 

 separating also what he regarded as the true L. gigas on the colour characters as a 

 third species. I have seen part of his material and can understand his point but 

 cannot agree that these forms are different species. I know many intermediate 

 specimens but the differences between the populations in the same locality can be 

 explained by two or three different hosts, which might account at least for the 

 length of the ovipositor, probably also for certain pattern of the markings. In 

 my opinion they cannot even be called host races. 



There is another puzzling feature to which I want to draw the attention of the 

 reader. The hind femur in L. gigas is very densely punctured in almost all specimens, 

 except in two from Uzbekistan, a male from Ak-Tash near Tashkent and a female 

 from Aman-Kutan near Samarkand (vi. 1959, /. Niedl; Text-fig. 176). The 

 interspaces are shiny, conspicuous, about half as broad as the punctures and also 

 the puncturation of the gaster is equally less dense. Otherwise I cannot find any 

 character which would suggest a separation on the specific level, but they may 

 represent a distinct subspecies. 



The variability of L. gigas was discussed also by Schletterer (1890)', Masi (1935 : 39; 

 1949 : 91-92) and Nikolskaya (i960). 



L. gigas is closely related to L. intermedia Illiger and the difference between 

 them is discussed for example by Masi (1935 : 40-41). The superficial resemblance 

 of the orange form led Shipp (1894) to his erroneous synonymization of L. miniata 

 Klug with L. rufonotata West wood, which was rightly refuted for example by 

 Masi (1935 : 39) and Mader (1937 : 161). L. miniata mainly differs by the characters 

 of the dorsellum and propodeum. 



Biology. Parasite of (mainly) Megachiline bees, e.g. Chalicodoma muraria 

 (Retzius) (Giraud & Laboulbene, 1877 : 418; Fabre, 1886 : 155 etc), C. pyrenaica 

 Lepeletier, Osmia rufa (Linnaeus) (both: Fahringer, 1922 : 43, 47), Osmia sp. 



