1863.] 
89 
to the description and figure, is certainly our common Xylocopa or car¬ 
penter-bee. .During the next year, Linnaeus, in his “ Mantissa Plant- 
arum,’’ gives Drury’s species the name of Apia Virginica^ and de¬ 
scribes it thus:— Mr suta pallida^ ahdomine^ excepto primo segmento^ 
atroA Fabricius, in his Syst. Ent.,and Ent. Syst., and Gmelin, in ed. 
Linn. Syst. Nat., give the same description of Apis Virginica^ quoting 
Drury’s description and figure, and as if they had not seen the insect, 
they give no additional characters, and we are, therefore, obliged to 
give these quotations as referring to Xylocopa Virginica. Olivier, in 
Encycl. Meth, (1789), although he quotes all former descriptions of 
Apis Virginica, gives us in a very few words, the first indication of the 
existence of Bomhus Virginicus^ having, no doubt, had that species 
before him when he wrote his description, because he says that the 
head is black, loitli a few yellow hairs in front, which is the case with 
the Bombus, but not with the Xylocopa Virginica. In 1804, Fabri¬ 
cius in-his Syst. Piez. creates the genus Bombns and places Drury’s 
species in that genus; he also describes under the genus Centris, a 
species which he calls Carolina, and which is nothing more or less 
than the same species as described by Drury. We are then to suppose 
that his Bombus Virginicus is the Apis Virginica of Olivier, and not 
of Drury and Linnaeus, whom he quotes. Mr. Say, in Best. Journ. 
(1837), doubting the accuracy of Fabricius in placing his Carolina in 
the genus Centris, made an examination of the generic characters and 
found it to be a Xylocopa, a genus created by Fabricius in the same 
volume in which he describes his Centris Carolina. Mr. Say gives a 
description of both sexes of this species, but allows it to retain the 
name of Carolina, and quotes Drury’s Virginica (which was described 
over’30 years before) as a synonym. Mr. Westwood, in his neAV edition 
of Drury’s work (1837), transfers the Apis Virginica of Drury to the 
genus Xylocopa, and quotes Fabricius’ Bombus Virginicus, Syst. Piez., 
as the same thing. Finally, Mr. Smith, in his British Museum Cata¬ 
logue of Hymenoptera, ii, p. 362 (1854), quotes both Drury’s and 
Fabricius’ species as distinct; to the former he gives the same refe¬ 
rences as he gives to Bombus Virginicus on p. 398, and indicates that 
both Xylocopa Virginica (Drury), and Xylocopa Carolina (Fabr.), 
as distinct species, are in the Collection of the British Museum. Amid 
all this confusion, our only course is to fall back on what little proof we 
