156 
A succession of accidents have resulted in the publication 
of this name without any insect having been des- 
cribed under it. Some time in 1878 I presented to 
the British Museum a small collection of Hymenop- ■ 
tera containing among other things two red-spotted 
Odyneri — male and female, — one specimen of each. 
Mr. F. Smith described them as the sexes of a new 
species, which he called 0. ruhritinctus. As I 
possessed the other sex of each I knew that the 
differences were not sexual. Mr. Smith’s lamented 
death prevented my further communication with him 
on the subject, but soon afterwards I wrote to his 
successor at the Museum (Mr. W. F. Kirby) regarding 
this, and others of Mr. Smith’s determinations, and 
the result was that Mr. Kirby published in the Ent. 
Monthly Mag. a paper to which he attached my name 
as well as his own, initialing each constituent part 
thereof. In this paper he published what I had 
written to him regarding 0. ruhritinctus, Sm., and 
added a note of his own in which he proposed a new 
name for the male mentioned above (paying me the 
compliment of calling it 0. Blachhurni), and proposed 
to leave the female (on the ground, I suppose, that 
Mr. Smith described it before the male) in sole 
possession of the name ruhritinctus, Sm. Hence of 
0. Blachhurni, Kirby, the only description existing 
is one of less than five lines under the heading 
“ 0. ruhritinctus ” (Linn. Soc. Journ. Vol. XIY, p. 674, 
and “ Descr. of new sp. of Hymenoptera in coll. Brit. 
Mus., 1879”), pointing out its (supposed) sexual 
differences from its (supposed) female. I think, 
therefore, that it will be necessary for me now to 
describe 0. Blachhurni, Kirby, as follows : — 
Suhnitidus ; parce suhtiliter puhescens ; punctatus; niger, 
rufomaculatus, alis fuscis (nec violaceis); clypeo vix emar- 
