NEW ARRANGEMENT OF BRITISH BEES. 
169 
glossse are entire, as is also the case with Dasypodci, 
from which Halictus is thus divided. In the Apidce, 
he does not separate the cuckoo-bees, but with Latreille 
intermixes Ccelioxys and Stelis with the artisan-bees, 
although without retaining Latreille’s convenient and 
suitable name of Dasyg asters , for this group of mecha¬ 
nics. The same objection I take to his Scopulipedes as 
that expressed above, relative to Latreille’s. 
Precisely the same fault I find with the Andrenidee of 
Smith, as that urged above with respect to Westwood’s. 
He is more careful with his Apidce, his Cuculince being 
all genuine parasites, but he includes Ceratina with the 
Dasygasters, with which it has no affinity of structure, 
and only a slight analogy in the form merely of its ab¬ 
domen without its hairiness beneath, to that of Osmia, 
from whose proximity he takes it to place it near 
Heriades, when it is certainly intimately allied in every 
respect with the Scopulipedes, and by reason of its sub- 
clavate antennae might suitably be brought into juxta¬ 
position with Panurgus, did not its obsolete paraglossse 
and three submarginal cells interfere with its occupying 
this position. To his Scopulipedes the same objection 
is valid as that taken to Latreille’s and Westwood’s dis¬ 
position of them. Amongst the social bees he separates 
Bombus from Apis, by the intervention of Apathus, 
which is scarcely consistent. 
It is in no spirit of captiousness that these objections 
are made; they are deduced from collocations whose 
conspicuous incoherence is patent to the most superficial 
observation. The distribution I have here introduced 
has been made merely to ameliorate, and make more 
cogent, what was so palpably defective and feeble. 
