161 
BRITISH BEES. 
ing pollen. Mr. Kirby, however, gives direct testimony 
in favour of Sphecodes being a burrower, in the case of 
which bee it ought not to be a matter of much difficulty 
to determine, for on sandy plateaus I have occasionally 
found it very abundant, especially where there was rag¬ 
wort (Senecio) in flower in the vicinity, to which the 
males resorted; but being at the time more intent on 
other matters, I neglected the opportunity. Other ob¬ 
servers concur with Mr. Kirby as regards Sphecodes, 
and also say as much for Prosopis (better known as 
Hykeus). I strongly incline to the opinion enunciated 
by Latreille and Le Pelletier de St. Fargeau, that they 
are parasites. My opinion is based upon peculiarities 
in them other than, although strengthened by, the nega¬ 
tive characteristic of absence of polliniferous organs. A 
negative cannot be proved, it is true, yet what has been 
positively asserted may as certainly result either from 
defective observation, or from too strong a desire to find 
no parasites among the Andrenidce. My reasons occur 
elsewhere in this work, and I need not repeat them. It 
is still an open question, and the young entomologist, if 
entering the arena unprepossessed, might win his spurs 
in determining it. It would be well worth the trouble 
of attending to for those who have leisure, and if decided 
in favour of the independency of these genera, which 
must be corroborated by a plurality of observations, and 
not confined to one locality, they would form strong and 
remarkable instances of a defective analogy in nature's 
workmanship, and suggest looking further for the causes 
of so extraordinary an anomaly, and urge us to endea¬ 
vour to trace the equivalent which supersedes it. 
The main subdivision of the Apidce results from the 
habits of the insects, which divides them into social 
