84 
[July 
its apex. Posterior legs in the females have on the upper and under margins of 
the tibiee externally, a dense fringe of stiff hairs, forming a eorbicula or pollen- 
basket; the exterior surface of the tibiae smooth, shining, and broadly dilated; 
the basal joint of the tarsi elongate, broad, flattened, and slightly concave ex¬ 
teriorly, deeply notched at the base, forming a stout tooth; the exterior mar¬ 
gins ciliated with short stiff hairs ; the claws bifid. In the males the tongue is 
more elongate and slender; the mandibles have a dense fringe of curled hair 
on their inferior margins ; the antennae are more slender, and longer; the pos¬ 
terior tibiae are not furnished with a eorbicula, and are slightly thickened; the 
basal joint of the posterior tarsi not notched at the base; the abdomen has an 
additional segment, and the antennae an additional joint.” 
The diiFerence in the shape of the posterior tibia© and first joint of 
the posterior tarsi of the males, will more easily distinguish it from the 
female sex, as it is often troublesome to count the joints of the antennae 
and the segments of the abdomen ] but a very conspicuous character 
with which to distinguish the sex, and for which, apparently original, 
observation, T am indebted to Benj. D. Walsh, Esq., of Bock Island, 
Ill., is the difference in the shape of the tarsal claws :—in the male the 
inner tooth of the claw is almost as long as the outer, while in the 
female and worker the inner tooth is very short. This character, as 
far as I have observed, is constant. 
Between the female and the worker^ there seems to be no external 
characters, excepting size, by which to distinguish them, the worker 
being the smallest, and yet in a large series of some of our common 
species, the size gradually diminishes from the largest female to the 
smallest worker, making it quite impossible to divide them without 
more explicit characters. However, as there seems to be some confu¬ 
sion of opinion amongst authors, regarding the dijBference in size be¬ 
tween the females and the workers, and in the absence of any satisfac¬ 
tory solution of the matter, it may be interesting to cite here a few pas¬ 
sages on this subject. Beaumur (Ins. vi.) says:—“The nests seldom 
contain more than 50 or 60 inhabitants ] these are of different sizes: 
the females, of which there is more than one in a nest, are the largest, 
and probably alone survive the winter; the males are of the middle 
size, as is also one description of working-bees, or neuters; the other 
neuters are the smallest, no bigger than the hive bee. These two sorts 
of neuters, it is most likely, are appropriated to different kinds of work; 
the largest being the strongest, and the others the most lively, active 
and expert.” Huber (Trans. Linn. Soc. Bond. 1802, vi, p. 218) says : 
