1928] 
Anthemoessa abrupta 
59 
red. The total female visits show 70.5 under Ma and 58.8 
under red. The male visits show 65. 3 under Ma and 53.8 under 
red. The total visits show 22 . 5% under Labiatse. The bee 
visits flowers of 17 families. 
Literature. — My lists show the sexes and whether the 
females were collecting the pollen or not. Knuth (2) notes the 
pollen collecting but ignores the other data. It is not clear why 
those using these data think the distinction is unimportant. 
They evidently do not approve of making them. I found the 
female on 17 flowers and the male on 26. The female was ob- 
served collecting pollen on 6 flowers and sucking on 11. The 
male was taken on 12 flowers also visited by the female and on 
14 flowers on which the female was not observed. The bunglers 
reduce all of these to collectors notes. Even as such the distinc- 
tion is important. The 12 flowers on which both sexes were 
taken are the best places for the collectors to look for both. Both 
sexes are flying only in 57.1 per cent of the time of the species. 
The surest place to find the female, however, is on Rosa humilis 
and setigera, where the male does not occur. Of the 31 visits, 5 
were made by the female alone, 12 by both sexes and 14 by the 
male alone. 
Knuth mentions 16 of the above. Lutz and Cockerell (3) 
mention 9, of which 2 were not in Knuth’s list, so that their list 
ought to give 18. The cryptic bibliography of these authors is 
well adapted to cover up the literature. They say “Doubtless 
some of the papers dealing with flowers and bees have been 
overlooked.” The first of my Botanical Gazette papers cited by 
them is “Robertson 1895, Botanical Gazette XX.” That is 
Flowers and insects XIV, concealing the fact that I-XIII were 
overlooked. Of the first 19 papers, they cite only 4. On An- 
themoessa abrupta they overlook one-half the cases 1 . 
*In the case of Em/phor bombiformis, under “Knab, 1911, p. 71, ‘Drinking 
habits,” they say: “See Robertson 1918”, as if it were second-hand. Frison 
evidently thought so and ignored it. What “Robertson, 1918” shows is that 
Knab’s paper was second-hand by 2 1 years and erroneous in every particular. 
It shows also that, as regards drinking habits and relations to Hibiscus, 
Grossbeck’s and Nichols’ observations were second-hand by 21 and 23 years. 
Under Bombus americanorum and B. fervidus Lutz and Cockereil cite 
Coville 1890 on the “elatus” question and say “see also Robertson 1890” as 
if the latter were second-hand, in spite of the fact that it is cited by Coville 
himself and anticipates his paper in almost every particular. 
