150 
BRITISH BEES. 
and certainly are not equivalents. The whole method is 
very perplexing; for, to cite an insect for the purpose of 
making a communication, it would have to be preceded 
by its whole array of subdivisions. Thus Megachile Wil- 
lughbiella, which is now so compendiously noticed by 
the binomial system, would have to be quoted as Apis 
* * c, 2, a, Wiling hbiella, and so with the rest. 
Although I have strongly applauded the ‘ Monograph!a 
Apum Anglise/ as an excellent treatise wherever I have 
had an opportunity, the praise is to be applied to the 
correct care with which both the family descriptions and 
the specific descriptions are elaborated; whilst Mr. 
Kirby’s timidity in fearing to depart from the course of 
his masters, Linnaeus and Fabricius, by establishing a 
multitude of genera unrecognized by their authority, 
although every one of his families is pertinently a well- 
constituted genus, is much to be deplored. He has thus 
lost the fame of naming the offspring, of which, although 
legitimately the parent, he was not the sponsor. But 
he has won the higher renown, as I have elsewhere 
remarked, of his work being a canon of entomological 
perfection. 
Notwithstanding that this very elaborate, and, to 
some extent, artificial method is based upon a plurality 
of characters, and apparently upon such as most readily 
presented themselves to substantiate the feasibility of 
subdivision indicated by habit, it is very remarkable in 
having brought the series into more satisfactory sequence 
than that presented by Latreille and his modifiers. 
Panurgus here holds its permanent post as the connect¬ 
ing link between the Apidce and Andrenidee, pointed out 
by nature in its close resemblance to Dasypoda. But 
this genus, however, establishes for itself a stronger 
