possibly could, by continued collecting during a succession of years,
enabled him, in the course of time, to add considerably to those he was
already acquainted with, either in collections, or through dispersed
notices. The growing bulk of his store suggested his looking around for
guides to their methodical arrangement, as a clue to what might have
been observed of their habits. Finding no such assistance, and nothing
to meet his wants, for Linnæus’s notices were too few, and Fabricius’s
labours too inconsequential, he determined to aid himself by elaborating
their distribution upon the basis of the principles established by
Fabricius himself, but which this celebrated entomologist had worked out
so inconclusively as to make his system an indigested mass heaped
together in the greatest disorder.
Mr. Kirby’s patience and diligence, although working only upon the same
principle, speedily brought into lucidity and order the obscurity and
confusion that had prevailed. By one of those strange coincidences which
have been remarkably recurrent in scientific invention and discovery,
Latreille, in France, was at the same time arranging all the bees known
to him, by a process precisely similar to that adopted by Mr. Kirby. He
consequently arrived at exactly the same results, with this difference
only, that what Mr. Kirby calls genera are to Latreille subfamilies, and
the sections which Mr. Kirby was induced to form in his genera, from
their structural differences, and which sections he called families,
inconveniently indicating them merely by letters, asterisks, and
numbers, were formed by Latreille into genera, and to which the latter
either applied or adopted names, or framed new ones, when deficient;
these however are essentially genera, with all their discriminative
characteristics, for they bring together the very same species in both
cases. This clearly exhibits the beauty and certainty of the principle
upon which each had worked out his distribution, both being based
chiefly upon the structure of the trophi, or the organs of the mouth,
but which Fabricius, its projector, had, singularly enough, failed to
accomplish successfully.
Both works were published in the same year, 1802 (An X. of Latreille’s
book), unknown to each other, but Mr. Kirby’s sprang into life in
matured perfection, like the imago of the bee itself, whereas
Latreille’s labours were progressively nursed to maturity in successive
publications, until they received their final elaboration in 1809, in
the fourth volume of his ‘Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum,’ whose
successive stages were, first, the notice appended at the end of his
‘Histoire des Fourmis’ in Paris in 1801, and then in the thirteenth
volume of his ‘Histoire Naturelle des Insectes,’ in 1805, a supplement
to Sonnini’s edition of Buffon, and then in the ‘Nouveau Dictionnaire
d’Histoire Naturelle.’ Even thus the subject was not so amply discussed,
although applied more extensively, and made to embrace all the bees,
exotic as well as European, at that time known, as it had been done in
Mr. Kirby’s model work, which leaves nothing to be desired but the
naming of his anonymous subdivisions, and a little more artistical skill
in the execution of his plates. The terminology used by him also differs
from that subsequently adopted through foreign influences, but which is
readily reduced to his standard.
The merits of the work greatly transcend these trivial deficiencies, for
it is a “canon” as invaluable to the entomologist as the celebrated
canon of Polycletus was, and the Phidian marbles still are to sculptors.
Of course observation has greatly reduced the number of his species by
their due association with legitimate partners, which, from their
dissimilarity, he was compelled to separate, as only successive
observation could prove their identity. More extensive collecting has
also shown that some of his species are merely varieties of others,
which have thus been brought to their authentic type. This also could
only be proved by experience, for it is remarkable how very Protean some
species are, whilst others are almost rigidly unchangeable. Evidently
there does exist a line of demarcation between distinct species, which
only requires to be diligently sought to be found, obscure as it may
appear to be, but which the insects themselves obey, for however closely
species may sometimes approximate, yet I do not believe, as I have
before expressed, that they ever permanently coalesce, and that they are
always as distinctly separate as are asymptotes.
As Mr. Kirby’s work is in few hands, or perhaps not readily accessible,
I will give here a summary outline of it, with the names of the genera
with which his families coincide.
In this work he established only two named genera—_Melitta_ and _Apis_.
His genus _Melitta_, which is equivalent to the subsequent subfamily
_Andrenidæ_, he divides into two sections, * and * *, the first
containing two families, _a_ and _b_, (these we call genera, and they
are now named _Colletes_ and _Prosopis_); the second section * *
contains three families, _a_, _b_, _c_, (_a_, is _Sphecodes_, _b_,
_Halictus_, and _c_ comprises our three genera, _Andrena_, _Cilissa_,
and _Dasypoda_.)
His genus _Apis_ he also divides into two sections, * and * *; the first
is subdivided into two families, _a_ and _b_ (our genera _Panurgus_ and
_Nomada_); and the second is divided into five subsections, _a_, _b_,
_c_, _d_, _e_; _a_ and _b_ constitute families (our genera _Melecta_ and
_Epeolus_). The subsection _c_ is divided into two parts, 1 and 2, the
first containing the two divisions _α_ and _β_, each comprising a family
(our genera _Cœlioxys_ and _Stelis_); and the second is divided into the
four families, _α_, _β_, _γ_, _δ_, (_α_ being the modern _Megachile_;
_β_, _Anthidium_; _γ_, _Chelostoma_ and _Heriades_ conjunctively, and
_δ_ is our _Osmia_). The subsection _d_ has two subdivisions, 1 and 2,
the first being a family (our _Eucera_); and the second is divided into
the two families _α_ and _β_ (_α_ comprising our _Saropoda_,
_Anthophora_, and _Ceratina_), and the family _β_, consisting of the
genus _Xylocopa_, then supposed to be indigenous, but whose native
occurrence has not been substantiated.
The fifth subsection, _e_, is split into two divisions, 1 and 2, each
containing a family (1 is our _Apis_, and 2, our _Bombus_).
In this last of his families Mr. Kirby had already noticed, with the
same sagacity with which he had previously conjectured the cuckoo-like
habits of some of the solitary bees, the distinctive structure of some
of the species, which incapacitated them from providing the sustenance
of their own young, and which thus reduced them to the same category;
but he left the idea in its supposititious condition, being too modest
to use it as a mark of separation, but which Newman, on our side of the
Channel, and St. Fargeau on the other side, subsequently, and both
nearly about the same time, but with the advantage in favour of Newman,
distinguished, and separated generically, respectively by the names of
_Apathus_ and _Psithyrus_; the former, having the priority, is adopted,
according to the rights of precedence in nomenclature.
The above description of Mr. Kirby’s system will perhaps be difficult to
understand, unless I append the naked scheme itself, which is as
follows:—
MELITTA.
[Table: Melitta Hierarchy]
Mr. Kirby could scarcely have considered that there were more than two
series of equivalents in this scheme, the first being the great division
into the two genera; and the second, the final division, where his
analysis terminated in his families, which, with some further slight
subdivision, as shown above, constitute our present genera. The
synthetical combinations which the arrangement presents, as we ascend
from his families, result from an almost arbitrary selection of
characters 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 Willughbiella_, which is now so
compendiously noticed by the binomial system, would have to be quoted as
_Apis_ * * _c_, 2, _a_, _Willughbiella_, and so with the rest.
Although I have strongly applauded the ‘Monographia Apum Angliæ,’ 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, Linnæus
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 connecting link between the _Apidæ_
and _Andrenidæ_, pointed out by nature in its close resemblance to
_Dasypoda_. But this genus, however, establishes for itself a stronger
affinity to the _Apidæ_, exclusively of that presented by the folding of
the tongue in repose, in its presenting immediately the large
development of the labial palpi which is peculiarly characteristic of
this subfamily.
All the cuckoo-bees then follow in order; these are succeeded by the
true _Dasygasters_; after which come Latreille’s _Scopulipedes_; and the
series is wound up by _Apis_ and _Bombus_.
Mr. Kirby, I suppose, was induced to associate in the same section
_Panurgus_ and _Nomada_, from their resemblance in general habit, which
in both conforms to the type predominant in the _Andrenidæ_, although
they are thence dislocated by the differences in the important organs of
the mouth, which verify in this case the seeming paradox of a part being
greater than the whole; for these are certainly of greater relative
importance to the economy of the creature than mere general habit, and
to which all the peculiarities of structure finally converge, for the
purpose of giving it what it thence acquires, its own proper and
distinctive place in the series of created beings.
The most extensive work since published upon bees generally, is that
treating of the _Hymenoptera_ universally, written by Le Pelletier de
St. Fargeau, and comprised in four thick octavo volumes, contained in
the ‘Suites à Buffon.’ In this work both the genera and species of our
bees occur, of course conjunctively with the rest, but its utility,
especially to the beginner, is materially diminished by the peculiar
systematic views of the author. The distribution of the Order is framed
chiefly upon the economy of the insects, which is not so tangible as
structure, and blends very heterogeneous forms,—widely separating, in
some cases, structural affinities, and sometimes uniting discordant
habits. Wasps and bees we here find intermingled, and to commence study
with this work would much perplex the student. It can be used
beneficially only when some progress has been made in the pursuit.
The only British entomologists who have treated of the bees since the
time of Mr. Kirby, are Stephens, Curtis, Westwood, and Smith,—the first
in his elaborate ‘Catalogue of British Insects,’ published in 1829; and
the second in his ‘Guide to the Arrangement of British Insects,’
published in 1837. The arrangement of the family of bees in both these
works is exceedingly arbitrary and without any obvious reason, either as
regards the consecutive order of the genera or species. This originated
possibly in their personal rivalry, which led them to make their systems
as dissimilar as they could, and as unlike the true order as they could
well dispose them. Both arrangements are certainly far beneath
criticism.
In the Synopsis of Westwood, at the end of his ‘Guide to the
Classification of Insects,’ published in 1840, and in Smith’s ‘Catalogue
of the British Bees, contained in the Collections of the British
Museum,’ published in 1855, we have Latreille’s distribution, with
slight modifications, to which I shall not advert at present, but which
I shall discuss in my next chapter, where I shall introduce the
arrangement I myself propose for the combination of the genera of
British bees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER VIII.
A NEW ARRANGEMENT OF BRITISH BEES, WITH ITS RATIONALE, AND AN
INTRODUCTION TO THE FAMILY, SUBFAMILIES, SECTIONS, AND SUBSECTIONS.
IF perfection of instinct, and an organization exquisitely moulded to a
complete adaptation to the many delicate and varied functions of that
instinct, as well as to the exercise of every faculty incidental to the
class, be certainly a proof of pre-eminence, we may justly claim this
position for the Order Hymenoptera. There is no characteristic in which
they are deficient, nor any in which some of the members of the Order do
not transcend in aptitude the insects of all the others.
If they have not been placed at the head of the class Insecta, it has
been because systematic convenience did not permit the transposition, on
account of the interruption it would have caused to the convenient
linking of the rest in a consecutive arrangement. Yet are they the most
volatile fliers, the most agile runners, the most skilful burrowers, and
consummate architects.
The beauty resulting from the combinations of symmetry of form, elegance
of motion, brilliancy of colour, and vivacity of expression, is to be
found exclusively amongst them. Either in the velocity of their flight,
or in its playful evolutions and graceful undulations, they are
unsurpassed, and they hover in the execution of their designs with
pertinacious perseverance. No insect structure can more thoroughly
exemplify the most appropriate adaptation to its uses, and the most
admirable elegance in the formation of the means of execution.
I thus claim for them, and which I think I may without infraction of
dispute, the distinctive rank amongst insects.
Having fixed the station of the Hymenoptera generally, we have next to
seek the relative rank of the natural divisions into which they readily
separate.
Taking structure and instinct conjunctively, there can be no doubt that
the first position will be conceded to that division of the Order which
comprises the aculeated tribes—those armed with stings,—some of whose
members, in each of the three large divisions into which they fall,
being social, that is, living in communities, organized by a peculiar
polity or administration.
These aculeates divide into, first, the _fossorial Hymenoptera_, or
burrowers; and the equivalent branch the _Diploptera_, or wasps,
distinguished and named from their folding the superior wings
longitudinally in repose; secondly, the _heterogeneous Hymenoptera_, or
ants, named from the dissimilarity either in size or structure of their
females, a peculiarity incidental to all the social Hymenoptera, but
living in community is more peculiarly characteristic of this division,
it being in the other divisions restricted to a few genera only, whereas
here the solitary habit is the exceptional. In all cases of socialism
there are three classes of individuals,—males, females, and abortive
females. In the other social kinds of Hymenoptera, these abortive
females, called neuters, perform the labours of the community, and they
are always winged; whereas amongst the ants they are never winged, and
they constitute civil and military departments, the former attending to
domestic matters, and the latter making predatory excursions to enslave
the inhabitants of other communities, to aid their civilians in their
many duties.
The third and last division of the aculeate Hymenoptera contains the
_Mellicolligeræ_, the bees, or honey-gatherers.
Thus each division of the aculeated Hymenoptera is closely linked to the
others by the strong affinity of the social habits of some of the genera
of their several families.
The food of these three divisions of the aculeated Hymenoptera differs
considerably, the Fossores being raptorial flesh-feeders, which hunt
down and destroy their prey, and supply it as food to their young; the
_Heterogynæ_ are omnivorous,—grain, fruits, or carrion being equally
welcome to them; but in these climates I am not aware that they destroy
life, although their wide migrations within the tropics are undertaken
in the very spirit of the Huns and Vandals, for they devastate
everything they come across; but the whole family of bees are
exclusively honey-feeders without any carnivorous propensities, and use
their stings merely as weapons of defence.
Although all the social aculeates are edifiers, and although the wasp in
its _papier mâché_ domicile may vie with the honey-bee in capacity and
skill in the structure of the hexagons of the habitation it erects or
suspends, which are as perfect, and almost as delicate, although
fabricated of a coarser material than those within the hive, and wherein
also the several compartments form a more homogeneous unity, and the
uniformity of the several layers or floors is more in accordance with
architectural symmetry,—yet must the palm of precedence be accorded to
the bee, from the more elaborate and perfect development of the social
instinctive faculty.
We may be the more excused for this preference when we weigh the
interest of the genus _Apis_ to man. The wasp boots us nothing, but is
the pilferer of our fruits, and a marauder upon the hive, whose
inhabitants it destroys and consumes their produce, it being indifferent
to them which they obtain—the bee or the honey,—either furnishing them
with sustenance. The ant is obtrusive and incommodious, making
incursions upon the pantry, the store-room, the green-house, and the
hothouse; disfiguring our flower-beds, and often disgusting us with our
aliment by the impertinent intrusion of its appearance. But the bee
stores up for us honey, whose cruses are as inexhaustible as the oil
cruse of the good widow of Zarephath, and whose waxen shards furnish us
with a beautifully soft light, which in Catholic worship adds solemnity
to the rites of religion. In doing this the bee fulfils a sovereign
function in the economy of nature, by the fertilization of the flowering
plants, with which she reciprocates benefits; the preponderance,
however, is importantly in favour of the flower.
If captious objectors should dispute the position we thus claim for the
bees, we will willingly leave them the wasp with its sting, whilst we
sedulously cultivate the active and industrious bee, whose associations
range through all the fields of poetry, but nowhere more lusciously than
in the beautiful compositions of the Sanskrit poets Kalidasa and
Yayadeva.
The position of the family, whose English constituents I shall
subsequently treat of, being thus fixed, I have next to explain the
several subdivisions into which it is divided in the following
arrangement.
I am prompted to propose this new distribution of the British bees, by
the manifest imperfection of the several arrangements of them already
extant. The defects of these systems I shall have occasion to exhibit in
reference to the course I have been induced to take.
Mr. Kirby’s keenness of observation led him to surmise, from the absence
of polliniferous brushes upon the posterior legs, or other parts of the
body of some, that there might be a class of bees analogous to the
cuckoo, amongst the birds, who did not rear their own young, or
undertake any of the cares of maternity; but that led by a peculiar
instinct they deposited their eggs in the nests of more laborious kinds,
for their young to be nurtured upon the provision laid up in store by
the latter for the supply of their own progeny. This being merely a
supposition, Mr. Kirby made no use of it in the distribution of his
families.
Observation has since confirmed the conjecture, and the fact lends
material aid to the combination of the bees into detached groups, and
which has been partially applied since by all systematizers.
Conjunctively with the assistance derived from this circumstance, the
various modes whereby pollen is collected and conveyed, either on the
legs or on the belly, further facilitates the grouping of the family.
Other structural or economical peculiarities lend their aid, and
although the arrangement primarily emanates from the differences in the
formation of the tongue, these are corroborated by differences in other
organs, and the general distribution, as well as the special
combinations, all result from natural characteristics.
The simplicity of the arrangement thus effected is very striking; and we
thus find all the bees having similar habits, and with a similar
structure united together by it in distinct groups.
I will here insert my scheme, and exhibit why and in what it differs
from those of my predecessors; and, where necessary, I shall append such
observations upon the several methods extant, as will sufficiently show
the necessity, and vindicate the introduction of a new one.
FAMILY MELLICOLLIGERÆ (Honey collectors).
Subfamily 1. ANDRENIDÆ (Subnormal Bees).
Section 1. _With lacerate paraglossæ._
Subsection _a_. WITH EMARGINATE TONGUES.
Genus 1. COLLETES.
2. PROSOPIS.
Subsection _b_. WITH LANCEOLATE TONGUES.
Genus 3. SPHECODES.
4. ANDRENA.
5. CILISSA.
Section 2. _With entire paraglossæ._
Subsection _c_. WITH ACUTE TONGUES.
Genus 6. HALICTUS.
7. MACROPIS.
8. DASYPODA.
Subfamily 2. APIDÆ (Normal Bees).
Section 1. _Solitary._
Subsection 1. SCOPULIPEDES (brush-legged).
a. _Femoriferæ_ (collectors on the entire leg).
† _With two submarginal cells._
Genus 9. PANURGUS.
b. _Cruriferæ_ (collectors on the shank only).
† _With two submarginal cells._
Genus 10. EUCERA.
†† _With three submarginal cells._
Genus 11. ANTHOPHORA.
12. SAROPODA.
13. CERATINA.
Subsection 2. NUDIPEDES (naked-legged).
a. _With three submarginal cells._
Genus 14. NOMADA.
15. MELECTA.
16. EPEOLUS.
b. _With two submarginal cells._
Genus 17. STELIS
18. CŒLIOXYS.
Subsection 3. DASYGASTERS (hairy-bellied).
_All with two submarginal cells._
Genus 19. MEGACHILE.
20. ANTHIDIUM.
21. CHELOSTOMA.
22. HERIADES.
23. ANTHOCOPA.
24. OSMIA.
Section 2. _Cenobites_ (Dwellers in Community).
Subsection 1. SPURRED.
† _Parasitical._
Genus 25. APATHUS.
†† _Collectors._
_Temporarily social._
Genus 26. BOMBUS.
Subsection 2. UNSPURRED.
_Permanently social._
Genus 27. APIS.
The primary division of the bees into two large branches, viz. into the
_Andrenidæ_, or abnormal bees, and the _Apidæ_, or normal bees, is
effected by the mode in which they fold the cibarial apparatus in
repose. In the description of the structure of the imago, I have
enlarged upon these organs, and for their explanation I must refer to
that chapter where diagrams exhibit the structure of the different kinds
of trophi of the bees, as well as their mode of folding. Here it is only
necessary to notice that in the _Andrenidæ_, the joint at the base draws
back the basal portion when protruded, and this basal portion is further
jointed at the point of the insertion of the paraglossæ and labial
palpi, and parallel with which joint the maxillæ are likewise jointed
close to the sinus where the maxillary palpi are inserted laterally upon
it. The basal portion thus throws the anterior part forward or retracts
it, at the will of the insect, and in the latter case, being then in
repose, it lies in contiguous parallelism to the basal half, but beneath
it. When thus withdrawn, the short tongue itself, with its paraglossæ
and labial palpi are sheltered beneath the coping of the labrum and the
lateral protection of the mandibles, whilst the horny sheathing of the
maxillæ protect the softer parts folding underneath.
In the _Apidæ_, or normal bees, the basal joint has the same action in
withdrawing the entire organ into its place of rest; but the joint which
gives it this power is not in an analogous situation to that in the
_Andrenidæ_, for it is seated short of the joint which lies at the base
of the several organs of the cibarial apparatus. By bending these
downwards, it carries their apex backwards towards the basal fulcrum
through the action of these two joints, and, when there, the more
delicate ones are protected from abrasion or injury, by the lateral
overlapping of the horny skin of the maxillæ. All being thus withdrawn
within this covering, upon the joint which folds them back, seated at
the base of the tongue, the labrum falls, and further to strengthen this
protection, the mandibles close over it like forceps.
That this difference in the arrangement of the cibarial apparatus points
to any distinctive peculiarities of economy has not been ascertained,
for the habits of the _Scopulipedes_ greatly resemble those of the
_Andrenidæ_; although the habits of one of them, _Anthophora furcata_,
are remarkably like those of the foreign genus _Xylocopa_, in its mode
of drilling wood. But the _Apidæ_ have cross affinities amongst
themselves, thus _Ceratina_ resembles _Heriades_, and some of the
_Osmiæ_, in the way in which it nidificates.
The tongues of the _Andrenidæ_ are always shorter, broader, and flatter
than those of the _Apidæ_, in which they are always long, cylindrical,
and tapering. In the first section of the _Andrenidæ_, the paraglossæ
are obtusely terminated at the apex, thence called lacerated, and where
they are fringed with brief bristles. The peculiar form of the tongue in
this section suggests its being separated into two subsections, that
organ being in the first subsection very broad and bilobated, which
gives those insects their position in the series by approximating them
to the preceding family of the _Diploptera_, or wasps, whose tongues
have the same bilobate form, but each lobe in them is furnished with a
gland. These tongues, in both cases of the wasps and these bees, may
conduce to the building or plastering habits of the insects. The form
may aid the wasp and the _Colletes_, the first in the moulding of its
hexagonal _papier-mâché_ cells, as it may the second in shaping and
embroidering the silk-lined abode of its embryonic progeny. Why
_Prosopis_ should have this organization is difficult to conceive,
unless it be from an analogy of structure incidentally previously
referred to, beyond which any special object has hitherto escaped
detection.
In the second section of the _Andrenidæ_, which have the paraglossæ
entire and terminating in a point, the tongues all also terminate
acutely with a lateral inclination inwards. In the lanceolate-tongued
tribe they bulge outwards laterally, although pointed at the apex.
All this subfamily of _Andrenidæ_, excepting only the two genera reputed
parasites, viz. _Prosopis_ and _Sphecodes_, are essentially
_Scopulipedes_, densely brush-legged, for the conveyance of pollen which
they vigorously collect; but from the brevity of their tongues they are
restricted to flowers with shallow petals and apparent nectaria, their
favourite plants being the abounding _Compositæ_ and _Umbelliferæ_, as
well as the _Rosaceæ_, whence they derive the agreeable odours which
many of them emit upon being captured.
Their peculiar mode of collecting is a further reason for bringing the
brush-legged _Apidæ_ collectively to the top of the normal bees, in
juxtaposition to the _Andrenidæ_, where the transition is made very
naturally from _Dasypoda_ to _Panurgus_.
The whole of the cibarial apparatus, or trophi, is always complete in
all its constituent parts throughout the _Andrenidæ_; and it is only
with _Ceratina_, in the group of _scopuliped Apidæ_, that it begins to
show the tendency it has to abnormal deficiencies, by the paraglossæ, in
that genus, being obsolete. This characteristic, then, exhibits itself
in the _Nudipedes_ with two submarginal cells who are parasitical upon
the _Dasygasters_, in whom also the maxillary palpi participate in a
deficiency in the authentic number of their joints, whilst in _Apis_
both maxillary palpi and paraglossæ are unapparent. This shows that the
numerical completion of the organs of the mouth have nothing to do with
the qualifications of the creature, the best endowed in other respects
being thus curtailed, the final cause of which is not yet understood.
The shape of the tongue itself thus separates the _Andrenidæ_ into three
well-defined divisions readily perceptible. These, as I have just
observed with respect to the differences in the mode of closing the oral
apparatus in both cases, yield no clue to economy and habits, for which
observation must supervene to illustrate it. This, patiently carried
out, is very desirable, as it is still in discussion whether,
notwithstanding the elucidation structure affords, _Prosopis_ and
_Sphecodes_ are or are not parasitical. Structure says they are, for,
like the cuckoo-bees forming the group _Nudipedes_ in the _Apidæ_, they
are destitute of the requisite apparatus for collecting 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 ragwort (_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
observers concur with Mr. Kirby as regards _Sphecodes_, and also say as
much for _Prosopis_ (better known as _Hylæus_). 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 negative 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 _Andrenidæ_. 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 endeavour to trace the
equivalent which supersedes it.
The main subdivision of the _Apidæ_ results from the habits of the
insects, which divides them into SOCIAL and SOLITARY. The only tangible
characters the social tribes present to distinguish them from the
solitary is the glabrous surface of the posterior tibiæ, with their
lateral edges fringed with bristles slightly curved inwards, and which
form, with the slightly indented surface of the limb, a sort of natural
basket for the conveyance of pollen or other stores to the nest. This,
however, has not been made use of as a main feature for scientific
distribution, although they might follow the _Dasygasters_, as
_corbiculated bees_, or little basket bearers, in which case they would
form as pertinent a group as any of the rest, and the whole distribution
of the bees, _Apidæ_, would then rest upon the absence of, or the mode
in which the polliniferous organs were present. But the wonderful
attribute of their extraordinary instinct prohibits their being treated
with the rest in a consecutive line, and renders it rationally
imperative that all the _Cenobites_ should group together in a section
by themselves, and separate from the rest. Therefore in my arrangement I
have not availed myself of this very natural character, and here
indicate it, to show that I have not passed it from not noticing it.
Although the division into social and solitary yields in itself no
tangible character whereby the insects may be separated, it being wholly
empirical, yet is it so natural and necessary that it is impossible to
gainsay it. We find the solitary section readily resolve itself into
groups or subsections, determined by positive structural characters,
indicative of certain habits, and having a conforming economy, besides
which they are equivalents.
Thus the first subsection presents us with the brush-legged _Apidæ_
(_Scopulipedes_), which collect pollen upon their posterior legs. These
are further subdivided into those which collect it upon the whole limb,
viz. the coxa, the femur, the tibia, and first joint of the tarsus, (the
_femoriferæ_), and those which gather it merely upon the shank and basal
joint of the foot (the _cruriferæ_). These collectively form a
well-defined group, and why _Panurgus_ should be separated from the
brush-legged bees, when it is a most conspicuous instance of the
faculty, even more so than any other of the _Scopulipedes_, I have yet
to learn. It is true its mode of collecting closely resembles that
practised by the _Andrenidæ_, as does also the furniture for the purpose
of its posterior legs, but being essentially collocated with the _Apidæ_
or normal bees by its tongue, it fittingly links itself to the other
brush-legged _Apidæ_ (which have hitherto been placed between the
_Dasygasters_ and the Social Bees), by means of the genus _Eucera_, by
reason of its two submarginal cells, the structure of its maxillary
palpi, its mode of burrowing, and by each being infested by a similar
parasite—a _Nomada_, which in accommodation to the size of the sitos is
the largest of the genus. _Nomada_ does not occur as a parasite upon any
other of the brush-legged bees, or indeed upon any other of the true
bees at all, which peculiarity brings these two genera into close
contiguity to all non-parasitical _Andrenidæ_, all of which have their
legs furnished with polliniferous brushes, and upon which subfamily,
exclusively of these two instances of _Panurgus_ and _Eucera_, _Nomada_
is solely parasitical.
With respect to the two submarginal cells to the wings, nature must have
some reason for the limitation, for we find it prevalent also throughout
the _Dasygasters_, or hairy-bellied bees.
The next very natural group is consistently central. It comprises the
cuckoo-bees, which are naked-legged (_Nudipedes_), by reason of their
parasitism, they not requiring organs to collect what they have no
occasion to use. Their parasitism extends both upwards and downwards,
those with three submarginal cells being parasitical upon all the
brush-legged bees, whether subnormal _Andrenidæ_ or the _Scopulipedes_,
those with two submarginal cells being restricted in their parasitism to
the _Dasygasters_.
These _Dasygasters_, or hairy-bellied bees, form the next very natural
group. Their general peculiarity of structure I have had occasion to
advert to, in treating, in a former section of the work, upon the
structure of the imago, and to which I now refer to avoid repetition.
This group contains the majority of the artisan bees, whose habits I
shall particularize when I speak of the genera specially; but we find
carpenters amongst the _Scopulipedes_, and essentially builders amongst
the _Cenobites_, which form a further and the last of our natural
groups. A true cuckoo-bee (_Apathus_) consorts amongst these
_Cenobites_, and properly so, from many causes. The anomaly would have
been too great to have removed it to a place amongst the _Nudipedes_,
for although in obsolete paraglossæ, and in a deficiency in the normal
number of the joints of the maxillary palpi, it resembles some of these,
its general habit and general structure, bating that controlled by its
parasitical habits, are so like _Bombus_, that it cannot well be
separated far from the latter,—especially as we know too little of its
habits to say that it does not regularly dwell in the nest of its sitos,
which may well mistake it for one of its own community, it resembling
the species it infests so closely; it therefore consistently associates
systematically with the temporarily social societies.
Having thus cursorily skimmed the surface of the method I suggest, I
have next to give my reasons for proposing it in lieu of adopting any
yet extant.
My exhibition of Kirby’s grouping, in the preceding section, where I
treat of the scientific cultivation of British bees, will fully explain
why I could not adopt that arrangement.
Why I cannot follow Latreille’s, is, that in his last elaboration, in
his ‘Families Naturelles,’ published in 1825, which must be considered
as his final view, he does not satisfactorily divide the _Andrenidæ_, of
the genera of which he has made a complete jumble. With the _Apidæ_ in
his group of _Dasygasters_, he intermixes _Ceratina_, separating it from
the group of _Scopulipedes_, where it truly belongs by every
characteristic, and he mingles also with them the two cuckoo genera
_Stelis_ and _Cœlioxys_, which are merely parasites upon these
_Dasygasters_, and can only be associated by the structural conformity
of the two submarginal cells to the superior wings, and the length of
the labrum, the latter being a character of very secondary importance;
and further, he dissevers the _Scopulipedes_ in placing _Panurgus_ at
the commencement of the _Apidæ_, and the rest proximate to the social
bees.
Westwood, in his modification of Latreille’s system, certainly divides
the _Andrenidæ_ better than his master had done, but he does not go far
enough. Besides, he interposes _Halictus_ and _Lasioglossum_, (the
latter admitted as a genus merely out of courtesy to Curtis, who had
elevated it to that rank in his ‘British Entomology,’ although it is
nothing more than a male _Halictus_), between _Sphecodes_ and _Andrena_
with _Cilissa_, these having lanceolate tongues with lacerate
paraglossæ, whereas _Halictus_ has a very acute tongue, and its
paraglossæ are entire, as is also the case with _Dasypoda_, from which
_Halictus_ is thus divided. In the _Apidæ_, he does not separate the
cuckoo-bees, but with Latreille intermixes _Cœlioxys_ and _Stelis_ with
the artisan bees, although without retaining Latreille’s convenient and
suitable name of _Dasygasters_, for this group of mechanics. The same
objection I take to his _Scopulipedes_ as that expressed above, relative
to Latreille’s.
Precisely the same fault I find with the _Andrenidæ_ of Smith, as that
urged above with respect to Westwood’s. He is more careful with his
_Apidæ_, his _Cuculinæ_ 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 abdomen
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
subclavate antennæ might suitably be brought into juxtaposition with
_Panurgus_, did not its obsolete paraglossæ 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
disposition 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER IX.
A TABLE, EXHIBITING A METHOD OF DETERMINING THE GENERA OF BRITISH BEES
WITH FACILITY.
THE following table is constructed exclusively to facilitate, by the
most obvious characters, the recognition of the several genera into
which the family is divided; it will, however, be incumbent upon the
learner to use some diligence in order to acquire an accurate perception
of their distinguishing characteristics.
By the present extremely artificial plan the systematic sequence is
disturbed; but the numbers, which will be found appended to the names in
the table, will show their orderly succession.
The natural generic character which precedes the account of each genus
in the next division of the work will give the reason, by comparison, of
the order in which “system” arranges them, and which being based mainly
upon the differences of the trophi,—although, conjunctively with other
characters, the trophi must necessarily be studied for its
explanation,—their description in the description of the part of the
imago is consequently referred to.
Did we know exactly the uses of the component parts of the trophi
severally, we should be better able to determine the legitimacy of
applying them to the purpose of indicating the natural generic
character, but being compelled, by reason of our ignorance of their
several special functions, to avail ourselves of their form, relative
proportions, and number only, uncertainty of having caught the clue of
nature’s scheme must of necessity attend this distribution.
But as what we do know of their uses in this family clearly indicates
them to be an essential instrument indispensable to the economy of the
insect, and which gives these organs an almost paramount importance,
their comparative construction in the several genera would yield clear
notions of the true order of succession, were we acquainted with the
relative significancy of the various portions of the entire organ. Thus
we see it numerically most complete in what we are pleased to suppose
the least genuine bees—the _Andrenidæ_.
In my series of the genera proposed in the preceding section, with the
_Nudiped_ true bee _Melecta_ commences a deficiency of either some of
the joints of the maxillary palpi, or of the paraglossæ;—throughout the
artisan bees this abridgment is conspicuous both in number and
proportion; and it culminates in what we consider the _facile princeps_,
that most wonderfully organized of all insects—the genus _Apis_, which
in its neuters has neither paraglossæ nor maxillary palpi, the latter
being equally deficient in the male or drone, and in the queen; and in
both the male and the queen the paraglossæ are but rudimentary.
Nature appears too mysterious in her operations to permit us to solve
these remarkable anomalies, for no combination of the genera founded
exclusively upon them supplies us with Ariadne’s thread. Every such
combination breaks up more harmonious groups, and we then retrace our
steps, satisfied that we are on the wrong road.
In some other orders of insects the cibarial apparatus has but little
bearing upon the insect’s mode of life, for in many it is not used
either for nutrition or in their economy, or so slightly so as to admit
of its being considered of very inferior importance, although
systematists—to enhance the value of their own labours, by the frequent
difficulty, from excessive minuteness, of its examination—have usually
made it a prominent feature in their arrangements.
That science has not widely strayed away from the true succession and
natural affinities by the main selection of the trophi for the
arrangement of the bees, seems partially confirmed by the gradations of
form or habit that this method of treatment in general exhibits. A
higher method doubtless exists, which would give form, number, and
proportion very inferior rank in ordering the arrangement, but at
present the clue to it has not been discovered.
These questions are indeed beyond the scope of a work of this character,
which is merely a ladder to the fruits of learning, and the bearing of
them is only hinted at to indicate that there is much exercise for the
intelligence in the study of even this small family. The mind that would
stop in the study of nature at the knowledge of genera and species, can
be very speedily satisfied, and one bright spring day’s successful
collecting will furnish the materials for much patient and industrious
occupation.
In nature we find all things apparently blended in the grandest
confusion; but they all have mutual and reciprocal bearings which give a
definite purpose to the seeming disorder, and which make each separate
unit the centre of all. But we, from our inability to grasp in its
fulness the order of this disorder, are obliged to seize fragments and,
separating them into what we conceive to be their coherent elements, use
them as exponents of the entirety. They could not so exist in nature,
but would speedily die out, and it is only by the way in which we find
them intermingled, that they can be maintained. Thus, as all conduce to
the conservation of each, each conduces to the conservation of all.
A large collection of natural history, composed of every available item
that can be gathered from every kingdom of nature’s vast domain, may
perhaps be compared (_magnis componere parva_) with the constituent
parts of a most elaborately-constructed and complicated clock, which its
skilful artificer has designed and made to record and chime the
divisions of time, and to register the days, weeks, months, and seasons,
and which a virtuoso having taken to pieces, has sorted into its details
of wheels and springs, levers and balances, chains, bells, and hands,
which told the time when its music would peal; and arranging like to
like, thinks he will thus understand more clearly the complexity of the
varied movements. But, sadly disappointed, he finds he cannot comprehend
the combination of the intricate machinery, although he singly admires
the minute perfection of each delicate and ingenious piece lying before
him which composed the structure, but which has now lost all expression,
his curiosity having deprived the organism of its vitality, which is its
most wonderful element.
And this is our process, for if we stop here we have but an assortment
of vapid machinery, no click of whose wheels gives note of the vital
hilarity of their relative and combined effects. The final cause of
creation escapes us thus frittering it into details, which if we merely
abide by, we but loiter at the foot of Pisgah, instead of ascending its
summits to survey thence the sunny and varied landscape, the glorious
sea, and, arching over all, the blue cope of heaven. The manifold
relations of animate and inanimate nature, which, although they must be
studied in detail, are to be appreciated in their entirety, should
stimulate the efforts of the naturalist to conquer all impending
difficulties, and he should not permit himself to be satisfied with this
preliminary knowledge.
Although the above be the inevitable effect of distributing nature into
its component parts, it is the indispensable precursor to the study, for
the scientific treatment is the only mode whereby, through special
study, we can arrive at the comprehension of the great generality. We
thus strive to trace the mode in which each emanates from each; and even
when this is not absolutely tangible we may discover affinities or
analogies by structural resemblances which implicitly lead to
physiological inferences, and thence on, higher and higher, all lending
us aid to make the larger survey, wherein we behold the concatenation of
the many links which harmonize the spiritual with the material. But the
study must be thorough, and its details are not to be spread out before
us merely as a beautiful picture-book. They all have their place in the
great ordinance of nature, which it is for us to find. At first we can
only spell the syllables, which the study of species puts together for
us, but by degrees we shall trace the words, and read the sentences: a
study more abstruse but far more pregnant than that of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, and whose attainment is rewarded with a supremer
knowledge than is accorded by these, which exhibit merely the legends of
dead despots; but here we have a display of the vitality of the wisdom
inscribed in gleaming characters upon the leaves of the wonderful book
of life, God’s glorious works, made manifest to man.
Thus we should aim at the knowledge of final causes, the apparent wisdom
of whose adaptations points clearly to the source of all—the first great
Cause. A naturalist with such large views has a wide field before him,
which with every step expands, and which alone is worthy of engrossing
the earnest attention of his intelligence, and is in itself sufficient
to absorb the profoundest contemplation. His mind becomes thus filled
with great objects, which charm it with their beauty and feed it with
the complexity of their intricate combinations, whose earnest
development is an affluent stream of perpetual instructive occupation.
With Newton we may say: “We everywhere behold simplicity in the means,
but an inexhaustible variety in the effects,” resulting all from the
luminous wisdom of prearranged design.
The humiliation which attends the sentiment of the utter inability and
incompetency of the mind to grasp the intricacy and vastness of nature,
is consoled by the redundant proofs the contemplation yields of a
supreme and benevolent Providence presiding over all things, and thence
we derive the comfortable and supporting assurance, in the fickle
waywardness and vicissitudes of a harassed and anxious life, that a
benevolent eye is ever watchfully awake; for the naturalist everywhere
beholds that omnipotently wise and loving Providence in active operation
throughout nature.
No study like natural history, pursued in a humble and docile spirit, so
harmoniously elicits the religion of the soul, or than which so fitly
prepares it to enter, by the pathway of the works of God, the august
temple of His revealed Word.
But to return: what we call science is the mere accidence of nature,
which in fact aggravates our infirmity by permitting our intelligence to
attempt to grasp, through the various details, their intricate
combinations. But as truth sooner arises out of error if methodically
pursued, and its results recorded, than out of confusion and guesswork,
theories based upon observation, however inaccurate at first, ultimately
lead up to the certain acquisition of the truth itself.
--------------
AN EASY DISTRIBUTION OF THE BEES,
THE NUMBERS REFERRING TO THE SCIENTIFIC SERIES.
ANDRENIDÆ (Subnormal Bees).
TONGUE SHORTER THAN THE MAXILLÆ, PORRECT.
_Posterior tibiæ clothed with hair to convey pollen._
Two submarginal cells.
Posterior legs very robust, polliniferous
hair on tibiæ and plantæ
dense but short - =MACROPIS (7).=
Posterior legs slender; polliniferous
hair on femora, tibiæ, and plantæ
dense and very long - =DASYPODA (8).=
Three submarginal cells to the wings.
Abdomen truncated at base - =COLLETES (1).=
Abdomen ovate.
Abdomen entire at apex; maxillary
palpi as long or longer than
the maxillæ - =ANDRENA (4).=
Abdomen entire at apex; maxillary
palpi half the length of the
maxillæ - =CILISSA (5).=
Abdomen with a vertical incision
at the apex - =HALICTUS (7).=
_Posterior tibiæ without hair to convey pollen._
Two submarginal cells to the wings. - =PROSOPIS (2).=
Three submarginal cells to the wings. - =SPHECODES (3).=
APIDÆ (Normal Bees).
TONGUE AS LONG OR LONGER THAN THE MAXILLÆ, INFLECTED BENEATH, AND
COVERED BY THE MAXILLÆ IN REPOSE.
_Without polliniferous organs._
Two submarginal cells to the wings.
Abdomen at apex rounded - =STELIS (17).=
Abdomen at apex conical - =CŒLIOXYS (18).=
Three submarginal cells to the wings.
Abdomen lanceolate - =NOMADA (14),=
Abdomen subtruncate at base.
Abdomen obovate, thorax glabrous - =EPEOLUS (16).=
Abdomen subconical, thorax hirsute - =MELECTA (15).=
Entire body densely hairy - =APATHUS (25).=
_With polliniferous organs._
Pollen conveyed on the venter.
Two submarginal cells to the wings of all.
Abdomen subclavate.
First three joints of labial palpi
continuous, terminal joint inserted
before apex of third - =CHELOSTOMA (21).=
First two joints of labial palpi
continuous, two last inserted
before the apex of the second - =HERIADES (22).=
Abdomen obovate, rounded at apex - =OSMIA (24).=
Abdomen truncated at base.
Segments slightly constricted,
and not spotted with colour - =MEGACHILE (19).=
Segments not constricted,
spotted with yellow - =ANTHIDIUM (20).=
Pollen conveyed on the posterior legs.
Two submarginal cells to the wings.
Abdomen lanceolate; antennæ
clavate; posterior legs covered
with long hair - =PANURGUS (9).=
Abdomen obovate; antennæ filiform;
posterior legs covered
densely with short hair - =EUCERA (10).=
Three submarginal cells to the wings.
Short dense hair on the whole posterior
tibiæ externally.
Abdomen obovate; first joint of
labial palpi twice as long as
second - =ANTHOPHORA (11).=
Abdomen subrotund; first joint
of labial palpi six times as
long as the rest - =SAROPODA (12).=
Long hair, but loose, on the entire
posterior tibiæ, externally
and internally.
Abdomen subclavate - =CERATINA (13)=
Curved hair fringing the edge only
of the posterior tibiæ, the
centre glabrous.
Body densely hirsute, spurs to
all the tibiæ - =BOMBUS (26).=
Body subpubescent, no spurs
to the posterior tibiæ - =APIS (27).=
--------------
It will be desirable to add a few observations to the preceding table to
facilitate its use, and because, as many of the characters upon which it
is framed are exclusively those of the female, it is necessary to point
out the differences of their males, that the sexes of the genera may be
duly recognized and associated.
It may be first noticed generally that the antennæ, in the males, are
not usually geniculated at the scape, which is nearly always the case in
the opposite sex, and they are also, with rare exceptions, always longer
than those of their females. In _Colletes_, _Prosopis_, _Dasypoda_,
_Panurgus_, _Ceratina_, _Nomada_, _Melecta_, _Epeolus_, _Stelis_, and
_Anthidium_, the habit or colouring of the males is so similar to that
of the females, that their genus may be thus at once determined, and, in
fact, the brief characters in the table will embrace them.
The male Eucera can be distinguished from those of _Anthophora_ and
_Saropoda_, both by the differences in the number of the submarginal
cells of the wing, and by the extreme length of its antennæ, whence the
genus derives its name. In _Andrena_ and _Cilissa_, the males have
usually lanceolate bodies. In the latter genus there will be no
difficulty in associating the legitimate partners; but in _Andrena_,
although general habit will usually bring the male within the boundary
of the genus, nothing but experience, or specific description will
associate the sexes correctly, there being in many cases an
extraordinary discrepancy between them. These two genera themselves also
can scarcely be distinguished apart, excepting by means of their trophi;
_Cilissa_, however, in general habit greatly resembles the genus
_Colletes_, especially the _Cilissa tricincta_, which might, upon a
superficial glance, be almost mistaken for one of them.
The male _Halicti_ have long cylindrical bodies and long antennæ, but
from the male _Chelostoma_, which has a very similarly shaped body also
and long antennæ, they may be distinguished by the differences in the
number of the submarginal cells; and from those of _Sphecodes_, by the
antennæ, which, in the latter are not relatively so long, and are
usually moniliform. The thorax of these is also less pubescent, and the
tinge of the red colour of their abdomen is different from that of the
red male _Halicti_.
The males of _Cœlioxys_ can be readily distinguished from those of
_Megachile_, by the spinose apex of their abdomen. In _Megachile_,
general habit will bring the males within the precincts of their genus,
as well as their largely dilated anterior tarsi in some of the species.
A difficulty similar to what is found in the distinction between
_Andrena_ and _Cilissa_, arises in the separation of _Chelostoma_ from
_Heriades_, and which we shall again meet with in drawing the line
between _Anthophora_ and _Saropoda_. The difference can only be detected
by examining the trophi, but a pin and a little patience will elucidate
the separation. The males in all but two species of _Anthophora_ may be
readily associated with their partners; but in these two the females are
entirely black, and so hirsute as to have led Ray (wanting the knowledge
of the use of the trophi and posterior shanks) to unite the one he knew
with his _Bombylii_; their males are fulvous, and the latter have a
remarkable elongation of the intermediate tarsi, from one of the joints
of which also a tuft of hair or a loose lateral fringe projects, giving
them thus a wider expansion, and the use of which is prehensile, the
same as that for which the anterior tarsi in some of the _Megachiles_
and in our single _Anthidium_ receive their dilatation. This structure
has also the effect of adding very considerably to the elegance of their
appearance when they are in fine condition.
The male _Apathi_ can only be distinguished from the male _Bombi_ by
familiarity with specific characteristics, or by the examination of the
trophi. But the former is the more certain mode of separation, as the
trophi in _Bombus_ vary in some species, but not sufficiently to
authorize generic subdivison. General appearance will mark where they
approximately belong. The length of their antennæ sufficiently
distinguishes them as males, and they may be taken with impunity in the
fingers from flowers for examination, being, like all the male aculeate
_Hymenoptera_, unarmed with stings. The female _Apathi_ may be
superficially distinguished from the female _Bombi_, which they most
resemble, exclusively of the generic characters of the convex and
subpubescent external surface of the posterior tibiæ and the trophi,
also by their abdomen being considerably less hirsute than that of the
genuine _Bombi_, in which it is entirely covered with dense shaggy hair,
whereas in _Apathus_ there is a broad disk upon its surface nearly
glabrous. If I remember rightly, it is the male _Apathi_ only, and not
the male _Bombi_, which emit on capture a pleasantly fragrant odour of
attar of roses.
The table will suffice for distinguishing the male _Apis_ from all other
male _Apidæ_, and which has a further peculiarity exhibited by no other
of our native bees, in the conjunction upon the vertex of the compound
eyes, in front of which, upon the frons, the simple eyes or ocelli are
placed in a very slightly-curved line.
These indications are enough to enable the beginner to work his way
smoothly, and a little practice will soon render these observations
superfluous.
The economy of nature is so perfect that wherever we can trace a
difference, we may assume that a reason and a purpose exist for the
variation. Thus we do not know why some bees have three submarginal
cells to their wings, and others only two. Nor do we know what governs
their variety of shape. The deficiency we might think implied
inferiority; but this cannot be, for those with most frequently the
smaller number, viz. the artisan bees, are, in the majority of cases,
the most highly endowed, and have the most special habits.
In the relative numbers of the maxillary and labial palpi, there are
remarkable differences, the reason for which we cannot trace, for, as
before observed, we do not know even their function, which would perhaps
guide us to other views. Their normal numbers are six maxillary, and
four labial palpi. The latter take remarkable relative development and
peculiarity of insertion and form, especially in the _Apidæ_; but
throughout the whole series of our bees, they are never reduced to fewer
than their normal number, whereas the maxillary palpi never have
similarly large development of structure, and are variously modified in
number and consistency from the typical or normal condition.
Thus in _Eucera_ and _Melecta_ there are but five joints; in _Osmia_ and
_Saropoda_, four; in _Chelostoma_ and _Cœlioxys_, three; in _Anthidium_
and _Megachile_, etc., two; and in _Epeolus_ and _Apis_ but one.
In this collocation no incidental peculiarity beyond diversity is
apparent, for in the first instance a parasite and a bee not parasitical
are associated; and in the last, a parasite is associated with the bee
which has the most elaborate economy, and the most largely developed
instinct of all known insects. Nor are, in any case, those parasites
associated by these means with their own sitos, or insect upon which
they are parasitical.
Thus encouragement attends the beginner at the very outset of his study;
and the prospect of a wide field for discoveries, in many directions,
lies open to him, to excite his curiosity and to stimulate his industry
to the pursuit of higher aims than the mere accumulation of species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER X.
THE SCIENTIFIC ARRANGEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERA, WITH LISTS OF
OUR NATIVE SPECIES AND AN ACCOUNT OF THE HABITS AND ECONOMY OF THE
INSECTS, WITH INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS SUGGESTED BY THE SUBJECT.
I NOW proceed to the treatment and description of the genera severally,
and the enumeration of the species in due scientific consecutive order.
The generic names adopted are those of the first describers of the
genera; but the generic characters given by them could not be employed,
they having been usually framed to suit special purposes.
All the generic characters introduced into this work are therefore quite
original, and have been made from a very careful autoptical examination
of the insects themselves.
The synonymy added to the lists of species is limited to the species
described in Mr. Kirby’s work, where he is not the first describer, or
to those of such other English works wherein the species may have been
described in ignorance of its previous registration.
The observations appended, wherein the habits of the insects are
described, will be found to embrace discursive subjects suggested by the
matter in hand, and here a dry didactic style has been purposely
avoided, as in the majority of cases they record the personal
experiences or notions of and hints from an old practical entomologist.
CLASS INSECTA METABOLIA, _Leach_.
Order =HYMENOPTERA=, _Linnæus_.
DIVISION _ACULEATA_, Leach.
Antennæ in male with 13 joints, in female with 12. Abdomen in male with
7 segments, in female with 6.
FAMILY MELLICOLLIGERÆ (Honey collectors), _Shuck_.
Subfamily 1. ANDRENIDES (Subnormal Bees), _Leach_.
_Syn._ Genus MELITTA, _Kirby_.
_The maxillary palpi always six-jointed._
Section 1. _With lacerate paraglossæ._
Subsection _a_. LINGUÆ EMARGINATÆ (with emarginate tongues).
_Syn._ OBTUSILINGUES, _Westw._
_Three submarginal cells to the wings._
Genus 1. COLLETES, _Latreille_.
(Plate I. fig. 1. ♂ ♀.)
MELITTA * _a_, Kirby.
_Gen. Char._: HEAD transverse, flattish; _ocelli_ in an open triangle on
the vertex; _antennæ_ not geniculated, but slightly curved, filiform,
short; joints, excepting the basal or scape, which is as long as five of
the rest and slightly curved, nearly equal; _face_ beneath and within
the insertion of the antennæ, slightly protuberant, laterally flat or
concave; _clypeus_ convex, margined anteriorly, entire; _labrum_
transverse, slightly produced in the centre in front, and the process
rounded; _mandibles_ obtuse, subbidentate; _cibarial apparatus_ short;
_tongue_ deeply emarginate and bilobate, the lobes fringed with short
setæ; _paraglossæ_ half the length of the tongue, abruptly terminating
and lacerate, and setose at the apex; _labial palpi_ much shorter than
the paraglossæ, four-jointed, the joints equal and each subclavate;
_labium_ about the same length as the tongue, its inosculation acutely
angulated; _maxillæ_ broad, lanceolate, the length of the tongue;
_maxillary palpi_ six-jointed, not so long as the maxillæ, the two basal
joints the longest, the rest equal, short, and subclavate, the apical
one rounded. THORAX subquadrate, very pubescent, the prothorax
inconspicuous; _scutellum_ transversely triangular or semilunate,
_postscutellum_ lunulate; _metathorax_ abruptly truncated, and densely
pubescent, especially laterally, for the conveyance of pollen; _wings_
with three submarginal cells and a fourth slightly commenced, the second
and third each receiving about their centre a recurrent nervure; _legs_
all pubescent, the anterior and intermediate on their external surface
chiefly, their _plantæ_ also setose; the posterior _coxæ_,
_trochanters_, _femora_, and _tibiæ_ very hirsute, especially beneath,
their _tarsi_ entirely setose; _claws_ bifid. ABDOMEN truncated at the
base, subconical with a downward bias, the _segments_ with bands of
closely decumbent nap, and the surface of all more or less deeply or
delicately punctured; the basal segment in the centre, beneath, with a
longitudinal tuft of long hair.
The MALE differs in having the _mandibles_ more distinctly bidentate,
and in being less densely pubescent, especially upon the legs. In
general aspect it is very like its female.
_Note._ The genus _Cilissa_ has, superficially observed, much of the
habit of _Colletes_, particularly in the male of _Cilissa tricincta_.
NATIVE SPECIES.
1. _succincta_, Linnæus, ♂ ♀. 3½-5½ lines.
_succincta_, Kirby.
_fodiens_, Curtis.
2. _fodiens_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3½-4½ lines.
_pallicincta_, Kirby, ♀.
3. _marginata_, Linn., ♂ ♀. 3-4 lines.
4. _Daviesiana_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3½-4½ lines.
(Plate I. fig. 1 ♂ ♀.)
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
This genus is named from _κολλήτης_, _one that plasters_, in allusion to
the habits of the insects, which will be described below. The female
insects themselves have, at the first glance, very much the appearance
of the working honey-bee, but they are considerably smaller, and, upon a
very slight inspection, they are found to be exceedingly distinct. The
respective males of the species are conspicuously smaller than their
females, but their specific characteristics are very much alike, and
there is some difficulty in separating and determining the species. One
strong peculiarity, marking all of them, is that the segments of the
abdomen are banded with decumbent, hoary or whitish down, in both sexes,
and the determination of the species lies chiefly in the variations of
these bands, and in the almost entire absence or conspicuous presence of
minute punctures covering the segments. The females are very active
collectors of pollen, and return from their excursions to obtain it,
very heavily laden to their nests. I am not sure that all the species
are not gregarious, to use this term in an acceptation somewhat
different from its usual application, for here, and whenever used in
entomology, it is meant to signify that they burrow collectively in
large communities, forming what is called their metropolis, although
each bores its independent and separate tube, wherein to deposit its
store of eggs. The males, neither in these insects nor throughout the
whole family of the bees, participate at all in the labours required for
the preservation and nurture of the progeny, a duty that wholly devolves
upon the maternal solicitude of the female,—these males having fulfilled
their mission, which is not perhaps restricted to their sexual instinct,
but may also be conducive to the grand operation of the family in the
economy of nature, viz. the fertilization of the flowering plants, flit
from blossom to blossom, and thus convey about the impregnating dust.
They may also be often seen basking in the sunshine upon the leaves of
shrubs, and thence they become lost or dispersed or the prey of their
many enemies,—birds or insects, which are always on the alert in search
of ravin.
The aspect selected by the females for their burrows, varies according
to the species. Some choose a northern, and others a southern aspect;
thus, the _C. succincta_ seems to prefer the former, and the _C.
fodiens_ the latter, as does also the _C. Daviesana_; and where they
burrow they congregate in enormous multitudes. The mortar interstices of
an old wall, or a vertical sand-rock, which, from exposure, is
sufficiently softened for their purpose, are equally agreeable to them;
nor have they any objection to clay banks.
In these localities each individual perforates a cylindrical cavity,
slightly larger than itself, and which it excavates to a depth of from
eight to ten inches, or even sometimes less. Now comes into operation
the use of the peculiarly-formed tongue with which nature has furnished
them, and described above in the generic character. These cells are
occupied by a succession of six, or eight, or even sometimes no more
than two, three, or four cartridge- or thimble-like cases, in each of
which is deposited a single egg with a sufficiency, taught the creature
by its instinct, of a mingled paste of honey and pollen, for the full
nurture and development of the vermicle that will proceed from the egg
upon its being hatched, and wherein this larva, having consumed its
provender, becomes transformed into the pupa, and by the continuance of
nature’s mysterious operations, it speedily changes into the perfect
insect. But the beauty with which these little cells are formed
transcends conception. Each consists of a succession of layers of a
membrane more delicate than the thinnest goldbeater’s skin, and more
lustrous than the most beautiful satin. In glitter it most resembles the
trail left by the snail, and is evidently, from all experiments made, a
secretion of the insect elaborated from some special food it consumes,
and by means of its bilobated tongue, which it uses as a trowel, it
plasters with it the sides and the bottom of the tube it has excavated
to the extent necessary for one division. As this secretion dries
rapidly to a membrane it is succeeded by others, to the number of three
or four, which may be separated from each other by careful manipulation.
It then stores this cell, deposits the egg, and proceeds to close it
with a covercle of double the number of membranes with which the sides
are furnished, and continues with another in a similar manner, until it
has completed sufficient to fill the tubular cavity, which, after
closing the last case similarly to the rest, it stops up the orifice
with grains of sand or earth. The food stored up is subject to
fermentation, but this does not appear to be prejudicial to the larva,
which first consumes the liquid portion of the store and then drills
into the centre of the more solid part, and continues enlarging this
little cylinder until increasing in growth by its consumption, it itself
fills the cavity, and thus supplies the lateral stay or prop which, by
means of the stored provender, was previously prevented from falling in.
It has not been ascertained what number of eggs each insect lays, or
whether it bores more than one tube, but it is presumable that it may do
so, and possibly thus, from the numbers annually produced, for there are
two broods in the year, colonies are thrown off which gradually form
another metropolis somewhere in the vicinity, although the majority
continue to occupy the old habitat from year to year. But the number of
these insects is kept within due limits by the individual abundance of
the parasites that infest them, and by the unsparing and unflinching
attacks of earwigs, which consume all before them,—perfect insect,
larva, and provender. The two most conspicuous parasites they have, are
the beautiful little bee, _Epeolus variegatus_, the young of which is
sustained, as in all bee-parasitism, by consuming the food stored for
the sustenance of the young of the _Colletes_; and the other is the
little dipterous _Miltogramma punctata_, whose larva, evolved from the
egg deposited in the cell, feeds upon the larva of the _Colletes_, or
possibly upon that of the _Epeolus_, which otherwise would seem to have
no check to its fertility, excepting that it may be subdued by the
_Forficulæ_.
These insects are to be found during the spring and summer months, and
throughout the southern counties, although some species are extremely
local. Some occur also in the north of England and in Ireland. I am not
prepared to say what flowers they prefer, for I have never captured them
on flowers, but they have been found frequenting the Ragwort, and Curtis
took a species at Parley Heath, in Hampshire, on the Bluebell
(_Campanula glomerata_). They form a remarkable instance of an artisan
bee, but so only in its habits, amongst the _Andrenides_.
-------
_Two submarginal cells to the wings._
Genus 2. PROSOPIS, _Fabricius_.
(Plate I. fig. 2 ♂ ♀.)
MELITTA * _b_, Kirby.—HYLÆUS, Latreille.
_Gen. Char._: HEAD transverse, flattish; _ocelli_ in an open triangle on
the vertex; _antennæ_ geniculated, the basal joint of the flagellum as
long as the second, and both subclavate, the rest of the joints short
and equal; _face_ flat, slightly protuberant between the insertion of
the antennæ, and distinguished from the clypeus by a suture; _clypeus_
transversely quadrate, slightly widening gradually to the apex,
marginate; _labrum_ transverse, obovate, fringed with setæ; _mandibles_
broad at apex, tridentate; _cibarial apparatus_ short; _tongue_ broad,
subemarginate and fringed with short hair; _paraglossæ_ very slightly
longer than the tongue, their apex broadly rounded and fringed with
hair; _labial palpi_ as long as the tongue, joints subequal, gradating
in substance, subclavate; _labium_ about as long as the tongue,
pyramidal at its apical inosculation; _maxillæ_ about as long as the
tongue, slightly lanceolate, fringed with short hair; _maxillary palpi_
rather longer than the maxillæ, with six joints, the basal joint robust
and slightly constricted in the middle, the third joint linear and the
longest, the remainder gradually decreasing in length and substance.
THORAX subquadrate; _prothorax_ transverse, linear, angulated at the
sides; _mesothorax_ with its _bosses_ protuberant; _scutellum_ and
_post-scutellum_ semilunulate; _metathorax_ abruptly truncate, and
longitudinally carinated in the centre; _wings_ with two submarginal
cells, a third slightly indicated, the first recurrent nervure springing
from the extreme apex of the first submarginal cell, closely to the
first transverso-cubital nervure, and the second closely before the
termination of the second submarginal cell; _stigma_ of the wing large
and distinct; _legs_ wholly destitute of polliniferous hair, the
terminal joint of the tarsus as long as the two preceding; _claws_
bifid; ABDOMEN subtruncate at the base, subconical with a downward bias.
The MALE differs in having the _mandibles_ distinctly bidentate, the
external tooth acute; the _antennæ_ are very slightly longer and more
curved, and their colouring is more intense and more widely distributed.
These insects are glabrous, generally intensely black, dull on the head
and thorax, but shining on the abdomen, and are more or less thickly
punctured, and they are usually gaily marked with yellow, citron, or
red, especially on the face, thorax, and legs.
NATIVE SPECIES.
1. _annulatus_, Fab., ♂ ♀. 2½-3 lines.
_annulatus_, Kirby.
2. _dilatata_, Kirby, ♂. 3 lines. (Plate I. fig. 2 ♂.)
_Hylæus dilatatus_, Curtis.
3. _annularis_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2½-3 lines.
4. _hyalinata_, Smith, ♂ ♀. 2-3 lines.
5. _signata_, Panzer, ♂ ♀. 3-3½ lines. (Plate I. fig. 2 ♀.)
_signata_, Kirby.
6. _cornuta_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3-3¼ lines.
7. _varipes_, Sm., ♂ ♀. 1½ lines.
8. _variegata_, Fab., ♂ ♀. 2-3 lines.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
This genus is named from _προσωπὶς_, apparently in allusion to its
seemingly masked face, most of the species having yellow markings more
or less conspicuous upon the face.
It is the least pubescent of any of the bees, even less so than those
confirmed parasites, the genera _Nomada_ and _Stelis_, thus further
tending to corroborate its apparently parasitical habits, for none of
the truly pollinigerous bees are so destitute of hair. The ground-colour
of the species is intensely black, variously decorated on the face,
thorax, and legs, with markings of different intensities of yellow; but
one of our species, the _P. variegata_, is also gaily marked with red.
Indeed exotic species, and especially those of warm climates, are often
very gay insects.
They have usually been considered as parasitical insects, from their
being unfurnished with the customary apparatus of hair upon the
posterior legs, with which pollinigerous insects are generally so amply
provided. In contradiction to their parasitism, it is asserted that they
have been repeatedly bred from bramble sticks; this circumstance is no
proof of the fact of their not being parasitical, for many bees, for
instance _Ceratina_, _Heriades_, etc., nidificate in bramble sticks, and
they may have superseded the nidificating bee by depositing their ova in
the nests of the latter; although it certainly is a remarkable
circumstance that some one of these bees has never escaped destruction
in the several instances in which these have been thus bred. It is also
said that their nests contain a semi-liquid honey. The fact of the larva
of a wild bee being nurtured upon any other provender than a mixture of
pollen and honey, does not elsewhere occur, and it would seem to
contradict the function this family is ordained to exercise, by
conveying pollen from flower to flower, and which besides, in every
other case, constitutes the nutritive aliment of the larva. But then,
again, the structure of its tongue, which resembles somewhat that of
_Colletes_ in lateral expansion, and with which it would be provided for
some analogous purpose, seems to contradict parasitical habits, although
St. Fargeau asserts that it is parasitical upon this genus, and if so,
although it has not been observed in this country, the analogous
structure of the tongue might be perhaps explained.
But notwithstanding this deficiency of positive characters, from the
absence of pollinigerous organs, nature is not to be controlled by laws
framed by us upon the imperfect induction of incomplete facts, for if it
be incontestable that this genus is constructive and not parasitical,
the riddle presented by this structure of its tongue is at once solved,
for without any affinity beyond that single peculiarity with _Colletes_,
it presents an anomaly of organization which cannot be accounted for but
by its application to a use similar to what we find it applied in that
extraordinary genus,—a use that could not be extant in a parasite. In
_Colletes_ it is the concomitant of as ample a power of collecting
pollen as any that we find exhibited throughout the whole range of our
native bees, but in _Prosopis_ it is concurrent with a total deficiency
of the ordinary apparatus employed for that purpose.
One of the species of this genus has been found near Bristol, with the
indication of a _Stylops_ having escaped from it, which is a further
extension of the parasitism of that most extraordinary genus, but the
_Stylops_ frequenting it has not yet been discovered, which would
doubtless present a new species, therefore an interesting addition to
the series already known.
These insects are not at all uncommon in some of the species during the
latter spring and summer months, and they frequent the several
_Resedas_, being very fond of Mignonette. They are also found upon the
_Dracocephalum Moldavica_, and occur not unfrequently upon the Onion,
which in blossom is the resort of many interesting insects. The majority
of them emit when captured, and if held within the fingers, a very
pungent citron odour, exceedingly refreshing on a hot day, in intense
sunshine. Some of the species are rare, especially those very highly
coloured, as is also the _P. dilatata_, so named from the peculiar
triangular expansion of the basal joint of the antennæ, the female of
which is not known or possibly has only been overlooked or not
identified. The _P. varipes_ and _P. variegata_, which are the most
richly coloured, occur in the west of England, and in one, the _P.
cornuta_, the clypeus is furnished with a tubercle.
-------
Subsection _b_. LINGUÆ LANCEOLATÆ (with lancet-shaped tongues).
Genus 3. SPHECODES, _Latreille_.
(Plate I. fig. 3 ♂♀.)
MELITTA ** _a_, Kirby.
_Gen. Char._: HEAD transverse, linear, fully as wide as the thorax,
flat, with a slightly convex tendency; _ocelli_ in a triangle; _antennæ_
short, scarcely geniculated; _face_ beneath the insertion of the
antennæ, protuberant; _clypeus_ transverse, margined, convex; _labrum_
transversely ovate, deeply emarginate, in the centre in front;
_mandibles_ bidentate, obtuse, the external tooth projecting much
further than the second; _tongue_ short, lanceolate, fringed with setæ;
_paraglossæ_ not so long as the tongue, abruptly terminated, and setose
at the extremity; _labial palpi_ not so long as the paraglossæ; the
joints comparatively elongate and slender, and decreasing towards the
apex in length and substance; _labium_ rather longer than the tongue,
its inosculation straightly transverse; _maxillæ_ about the length of
the tongue, broad and lanceolate; _maxillary palpi_ six-jointed, the
first joint shorter and less robust than the second, which is also
shorter and less robust than the third, which is the longest and most
robust of all, the terminal joints more slender, and declining gradually
in length. THORAX ovate; _prothorax_ linear, produced into a sharp tooth
on each side; _mesothorax_ with longitudinal lateral impressed lines;
_bosses_ acutely protuberant; _scutellum_ quadrate; _postscutellum_
inconspicuous; _metathorax_ slightly gibbous; _wings_ with three
submarginal cells, and a fourth slightly commenced, the second narrow,
forming a truncated triangle, and receiving the first recurrent nervure
in its centre, the second recurrent nervure springing from just beyond
the centre of the third submarginal cell; _legs_ slightly but rigidly
spinose and setose; _claws_ bifid. ABDOMEN ovate.
The MALES differ, in having the antennæ longer and sometimes moniliform,
the lower part of the _face_ and _clypeus_ usually covered with a dense
short silvery decumbent pubescence, and they have the _metathorax_
truncated at its base; in other respects they greatly resemble their
females.
The insects of this genus may be called glabrous, their pubescence being
so slight and scattered, they usually shine brightly, and are more or
less deeply punctured; and the abdomen is always partially or entirely
of a bright ferruginous red, sometimes verging into fuscous or pitchy.
NATIVE SPECIES.
1. _gibbus_, Linnæus, ♂♀. 3-4½ lines. (Plate I. fig. 3 ♂♀).
_sphecoides_, Kirby, ♀.
_monilicornis_, Kirby, ♂.
_picea_, Kirby, ♂.
2. _Geoffroyella_, Kirby, ♂♀. 1-3 lines.
_divisa_, Kirby, ♂.
3. _fuscipennis_, Germar, ♂♀. 4½-6 lines.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
This genus is named from _σφὴξ_, a wasp, from its apparent resemblance
to some of the sand wasps.
They are not uncommon insects, and I have found them abundant in sandy
spots sporting in the sunshine upon the bare ground, where they run
about with great activity, the females chiefly, the males the while
disporting themselves upon any flowers that may be adjacent, and they
are especially fond of Ragwort. Their prevalent colours are black and
red, the latter occurring only on the abdomen in different degrees of
intensity and extension, sometimes occupying the whole of that division
of the body, and sometimes limited to a band across it. Much difficulty
attaches to the determination of the species from the characters which
separate them being extremely obscure, for it is not safe to depend upon
the differences of the arrangement of colour upon them, as it varies
infinitely; nor can their relative sizes be depended upon as a clue, for
in individuals which must be admitted to be of the same species, size
takes a wider extent of difference than in almost any of the genera of
bees. St. Fargeau, who maintains the parasitism of the genus, accounts
for it by saying that in depositing their eggs in the nests of the
_Andrenæ_, _Halicti_, and _Dasypoda_, the _Sphecodes_ resorts to the
burrows of the species of these genera indifferent to their adaptation
to its own size, and thus from the abundance or paucity of food so
furnished to its larvæ, does it become a large or a small individual.
Westwood says the species are parasitical upon Halictus. Latreille says
they are parasites. They are certainly just as destitute of the
pollinigerous apparatus as the preceding genus. Mr. Thwaites once
thought he had detected a good specific character in the differing
lengths of the joints of the antennæ, but I believe he never thoroughly
satisfied himself of its being practically available. At all events
great difficulty still attaches to their rigid and satisfactory
determination. There is an array of entomologists who deny their being
parasites. Mr. Kirby says they form their burrows in bare sections of
sandbanks exposed to the sun, and nine or ten inches deep, and which
they smooth with their tongues. But then, in impeachment of the accuracy
of his observation, he further supposes there are three sexes, founding
his statement upon what Réaumur remarks of having observed pupæ of three
different sizes in the burrows. In the first place, it is not conclusive
that these pupæ were those of _Sphecodes_, and secondly we know that
this condition of three sexes is found only in the social tribes,
wherein the peculiarities of the economy exact a division of offices.
Therefore his adoption of this inaccuracy militates against the
reception of his other statement. But Smith also states that they are
not parasites, and apparently founds his assertion upon direct
observation. It still, however, remains a debatable point, from the fact
of the destitution of pollinigerous brushes, and thence the character of
the food necessary to be stored for the larva. It would be very
satisfactory if these apparent inconsistencies could be lucidly
explained.
If, however, it be ultimately proved that _Sphecodes_ is a constructive
bee, as well as _Prosopis_, we have then this fact exhibited by our
native genera, that none of the subfamily of our short-tongued bees, or
_Andrenidæ_, are parasitical. This is a remarkable peculiarity, as it is
amongst them that we should almost exclusively expect to find that
distinguishing economy, from the seemingly imperfect apparatus furnished
in the short structure of their tongues. It is possible, however, that
nature has so moulded them as to fit them chiefly for fulfilling its
objects within merely a certain range of the floral reign, and which
restricts them to visiting flowers which do not require the protrusion
of a long organ to rifle their sweet stores.
Genus 4. ANDRENA, _Fabricius_.
(Plates II. and III.)
MELITTA ** _c_, Kirby.
_Gen. Char._: HEAD transverse, as wide as the thorax; _ocelli_ in a
triangle on the vertex; _antennæ_ filiform, geniculated, the basal joint
of the flagellum the longest; _face_ flat; _clypeus_ convex, transverse,
quadrate, slightly rounded in front; _labrum_ transverse, oblong;
_mandibles_ bidentate; _tongue_ moderately long, lanceolate, fringed
with fine hair; _paraglossæ_ half the length of the tongue, abruptly
terminated and setose at the extremity; _labium_ about half the length
of the entire apparatus, its inosculation acute; _labial palpi_ inserted
above it, below the origin of the paraglossæ in a sinus upon the sides
of the tongue; _maxillæ_ irregularly lanceolate; _maxillary palpi_
six-jointed, longer than the maxillæ, the basal joint about as long as
the fourth, but more robust, the second joint the longest, the rest
declining in length and substance. THORAX ovate; _prothorax_ not
distinct; _mesothorax_ quadrate; _bosses_ protuberant; _scutellum_
lunate; _post-scutellum_ lunulate; _metathorax_ gibbous, and pubescent
laterally; _wings_ with three submarginal cells, and a fourth slightly
commenced, the second quadrate, and with the third receiving a recurrent
nervure about their middle; _legs_ densely pubescent, especially
externally, and particularly the posterior pair, which have a long
curled lock upon the trochanter beneath, the anterior upper surface of
the femora clothed with long loose hair, which equally surrounds the
whole of the tibiæ, but which is less long upon their plantæ, the
_claws_ strongly bifid. ABDOMEN ovate, a dense fringe edging the fifth
segment, and the terminal segment having a triangular central plate, its
sides rigidly setose.
The MALE differs in having the _head_ rather wider than the thorax, the
_vertex_ where the ocelli are placed more protuberant, the _mandibles_
very large and more acutely bidentate, sometimes largely forcipate and
with but one acute tooth; the males in most species greatly differ from
their females.
None of these insects exhibit any positive colouring of the integument,
excepting in some upon the abdomen, which exhibits red bands, and is
disposed to vary considerably in intensity and breadth, and in some the
_clypeus_ and _face_ are of a cream-colour, but which occurs chiefly
among the males. They are very dissimilar in general appearance, some
being densely pubescent all over, others merely so on the head and
thorax; others are banded with white decumbent down, and some are wholly
unmarked upon the abdomen. These peculiarities help to group them, and
thus facilitate their recognition.
NATIVE SPECIES.
§ _Banded with red on the abdomen, the segments of which are more or
less fringed._
1. _Hattorfiana_, Fab., ♂ ♀. 6—7 lines.
_Lathamana_, Kirby, ♀.
_hæmorrhoidalis_, Kirby, ♀.
2. _zonalis_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4½-5 lines.
3. _florea_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 5-6½ lines.
_Rosæ_, Kirby, var.
4. _Rosæ_, Panzer, ♂ ♀. 4-6 lines. (Plate III. fig. 1 ♂ ♀.)
_Rosæ_, Kirby, ♀.
5. _decorata_, Smith, ♂ ♀. 5-6½ lines.
6. _Schrankella_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5 lines.
_ affinis_, Kirby.
7. _cingulata_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 3½-4 lines. (Plate III. fig. 3 ♂
♀.)
_cingulata_, Kirby.
§§ _Abdominal segments edged with decumbent short down, or fringed with
long hair._
8. _longipes_, Shuckard, ♂ ♀. 4-6 lines. (Plate III. fig. 2 ♂ ♀.)
9. _chrysosceles_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3½-4½ lines.
10. _dorsata_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-4½ lines.
_combinata_, Kirby.
_nudiuscula_, Kirby.
11. _connectens_, Kirby. 5 lines.
12. _Wilkella_, Kirby, ♀. 5¾ lines.
13. _Coitana_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4 lines.
_Shawella_, Kirby.
14. _labialis_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5½-6 lines.
15. _Lewinella_, ♂. 3¾ lines.
16. _xanthura_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3½-6 lines.
_ovatula_, Kirby.
17. _Collinsonana_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3½-4½ lines.
_digitalis_, Kirby.
_proxima_, Kirby.
18. _albicrus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5½ lines.
_barbilabris_, Kirby.
19. _minutula_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2½-3½ lines.
_parvula_, Kirby.
20. _nana_, Kirby, ♀. 3½ lines.
21. _convexiuscula_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5 lines.
22. _Kirbyi_, Curtis, ♀. 6 lines.
23. _fuscata_, Kirby, ♀. 4½ lines.
24. _Afzeliella_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4½-5 lines.
25. _fulvicrus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3½-5¼ lines.
_contigua_, Kirby.
26. _fulvago_, Christ. ♂ ♀. 4-4½ lines.
_fulvago_, Kirby.
27. _tibialis_, Kirby. 5-7¼ lines.
_atriceps_, Kirby.
28. _Mouffetella_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5-7 lines.
29. _nigro-ænea_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5-6½ lines.
30. _bimaculata_, Kirby, ♂. 5½ lines.
31. _Trimmerana_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5-6 lines.
32. _conjuncta_, Smith, ♀. 5½ lines.
33. _varians_, Rossi, ♂ ♀. 4-5½ lines.
34. _helvola_, Linnæus, ♂ ♀. 5-5½ lines.
_picipes_, Kirby, ♂.
_angulosa_, Kirby.
35. _Gwynana_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5½ lines.
_pilosula_, Kirby.
36. _angustior_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5 lines.
37. _picicornis_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5-6 lines.
38. _spinigera_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5-6 lines.
39. _Smithella_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3-6 lines.
40. _Lapponica_, Zetterstedt, ♂ ♀. 3½-5½ lines.
41. _tridentata_, Kirby, ♂. 4½ lines.
42. _denticulata_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5½ lines.
_Listerella_, Kirby.
43. _nigriceps_, Kirby, ♀. 5 lines.
44. _pubescens_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5 lines.
_rufitarsis_, Kirby.
_fuscipes_, Kirby.
§§§§ _Thorax very pubescent, abdomen smooth and shining._
45. _albicans_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5 lines.
46. _pilipes_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 5-7 lines.
_pratensis_, Kirby.
47. _cineraria_, Linnæus, ♂ ♀. 5-7 lines. (Plate II. fig. 2 ♂ ♀.)
_cineraria_, Kirby.
48. _thoracica_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 5-7½ lines.
_thoracica_, Kirby.
_melanocephala_, Kirby.
49. _nitida_, Fourcroy, ♂ ♀. 5-6½ lines. (Plate II. fig. 3 ♂ ♀.)
_nitida_, Kirby.
50. _vitrea_, Smith, ♀. 6½ lines.
§§§§ _The entire body densely pubescent._
51. _fulva_, Schrank, ♂ ♀. 4-6½ lines. (Plate II. fig. 1 ♂ ♀.)
_fulva_, Kirby.
52. _Clarkella_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4½-6½ lines.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
Fabricius seems to have named this genus from _ανθρήνη_, _a wasp_, but
why, it is impossible to say. Although one name is as good as another,
it being indifferent what the name may be, yet where so evident an
attempt to give a name pertinence is conspicuous, it is remarkable that
it should be so little relevant, for none of the characteristics of a
wasp or hornet are exhibited in these insects.
Possibly it was from the genus being the most numerous in species that
Dr. Leach was induced to give this subfamily its collective designation,
making the other genera thus converge to it as to a centre. He took its
elliptical form as typical. Indeed, it is remarkable how very
judiciously this was done, for it is a form not apparent among the
normal bees excepting in two exceptional cases, the one upon the
frontiers of this subfamily, in almost debatable land, where the last of
the _Andrenidæ_ and the first of the _Apidæ_ seem almost to melt into
one another; and in the other case, in the parasitical _Nomada_, whose
parasitism is in every instance, but one only, restricted to the first
subfamily. A different type of form prevails amongst the _Apidæ_, upon
which I shall have subsequently occasion to speak.
These insects are not distinguished for any elaborate economy. Varying
in the species, some prefer vertical banks, others sloping undulations,
and again others horizontal flat ground or hard down-trodden pathways.
Some burrow singly, and others are gregarious, collected in great
numbers upon one spot. They are, perhaps, the most inartificial
burrowers of all the bees. Their tunnels vary from five to nine or ten
inches in depth, and in some species they are formed with other small
tunnels slanting off from the main cylinder. The sides and bottom are
merely smoothed, without either drapery or polish. The little cells thus
formed are then supplied with the usual mixture of pollen and honey
kneaded together, which in the larger species forms a mass of about the
size of a moderate red currant, its instinct teaching it the quantity
necessary for the nurture of the young which shall proceed from the egg
that it then deposits upon this collected mass of food. The aperture of
each little tunnel is closed with particles of the earth or sand wherein
the insect burrows, and it proceeds to the elaboration of another
receptacle for a fresh brood until its stock of eggs becomes exhausted.
Some species have two broods hatched in the year, especially the earlier
ones,—for several present themselves with the earliest flowers,—but
others are restricted to but one. The quantity of pollen they collect is
considerable, and in fact they are supplied with an apparatus additional
to what is furnished to any of the other genera in a curled rather long
lock of hair that emanates from the posterior trochanters. This, with
the fringes that edge the lower portion and sides of the metathorax, as
well as the usual apparatus upon the posterior legs, enables the insect
to carry in each flight home a comparatively large quantity of pollen,
but perhaps scarcely enough at once for the nurture of one young one,
and it therefore repeats the same operation until sufficient is
accumulated.
The exact period occupied by their transformations is not strictly
known; it will, of course, vary in the species, as also in those in
which two broods succeed each other in the year, but the larva rapidly
consumes its store and then undergoes its transformation. It does not
spin a cocoon, but in its pupa state it is covered all over with a thin
pellicle, which adheres closely to all the distinct parts of the body.
It is not known how this is formed; perhaps it is a membrane which
transudes in a secretion through the skin of the larva, or it may be
this itself converted to its new use, which seems to be for the
protection of all the parts of the now transmuting imago, until these in
due course shall have acquired their proper consistency.
These insects in their perfect state vary very considerably in size,
both individually and specifically, the former depending upon both the
quantity and quality of the food stored up, for the pollen of different
plants varies possibly in its amount of nutriment, else why should we
observe so marked a difference in the sizes of individuals whose parent
instinct would prompt to furnish them with an uniform and equal supply.
The differences of specific appearance is often very considerable in
long genera, and perhaps in no genus is it more conspicuously so than in
_Andrena_, for here we have some wholly covered with dense hair, and
others almost glabrous; others again with the thorax only pubescent;
some are black, some white, some fulvous, or golden tinted, and some
red; some we find banded with decumbent down, and others with merely
lateral spots of this close hair, but the most prevalent colour is
brown, which will sometimes by immaturity take a fulvous or reddish hue.
In many males we see excentrically large transversely square heads
broader than the thorax, which also have widely spreading forcipate
mandibles, with often a downward projecting spine at their base beneath;
and it is chiefly these extravagantly formed males which are most
dissimilar to their own partners that the result of observation alone
confirms their specific identity. In other cases the males are so like
their females that a mere neophyte would unite them. In many males the
clypeus and labrum are white, which also occurs in some females; for
instance, in _A. labialis_, but this peculiarity is found more rarely in
this sex. The species are much exposed to the restricting influences of
several parasites, whose parasitism is of a varying character, but the
term should properly be applied only to the bees which deposit their
eggs in their nests, and whose young, like that of the cuckoo among the
birds, thrives at the expense of the young of the sitos by consuming its
food, and thus starving it. These parasites consist of many of the
species of _Nomada_, very pretty and gay insects, but in every case
totally unlike the bee whose nest they usurp. Several of the species of
these _Nomadæ_ are not limited to any particular species of _Andrena_,
but infest several indifferently, whereas others have no wider range in
their spoliation than one single species, to which they always confine
themselves. In my observations under the genus _Nomada_ I shall notify
those which they assail amongst the _Andrenæ_, as well as the other
genera which they also infest.
The others which attack them are more properly positive enemies than
parasites, for they prey upon the bees themselves, or, as in the case of
the remarkable genus _Stylops_, render the bee abortive by consuming its
viscera and ovaries. I have spoken of these insects in the chapter upon
parasites, to which I must refer, but I may here add that the female is
apterous, and never quits the body of the bee. Much mystery attaches to
their history in which their impregnation is involved, for the male,
immediately upon undergoing its change into the imago, escapes through
the dorsal plates of the abdomen of the bee wherein it was bred and
takes flight. In localities where they occur they may be usually taken
on the wing in the month of May. The female would seem to be viviparous,
and produces extraordinary multitudes at one birth, extending to
hundreds. Being born as larvæ within the body of the bee they seek to
escape from their confinement, and find the opportunity in the suture
which separates the mesothorax from the metathorax. Their extreme
minuteness admits of their passing through the very constricted tube
which connects the abdomen with the thorax. Having now escaped into the
air they alight upon the flowers which the bee frequents, and thence
they affix themselves to other bees which may visit these plants, and
thus perpetuate the activity of the function it is their instinct to
fulfil. That many may be lost there can be no question; but Nature is
very prodigal of life, for by life it endows life, and thus its activity
is enlarged to a wider circle. Although the matured _Stylops_ has preyed
upon all the internal organs of the bee its attack is not immediately
fatal, although the life of the creature may be thus considerably
abridged, but it seems to live sufficiently long afterwards to
disseminate the distribution of the _Stylops_. A small blackish
_Pediculus_, which Mr. Kirby called _Pediculus Melittæ_, is found also
both upon the flowers the bees frequent and also upon the bees
themselves, especially the pubescent ones; but this insect is not
limited to the genus _Andrena_, as I shall have occasion to notice. The
flower I have chiefly found them upon is the Dandelion (_Leontodon_).
Their peculiar economy and connection with the bees is unknown; it may
be merely an accidental and temporary attachment, but they even
accompany them to their burrows.
Another and more curious case of attack upon the young of the _Andrena_,
is instanced in the reputed parasitism of the Coleopterous genus
_Meloë_. The perfect insect is a large apterous, fleshy, heteromerous
beetle, ten times as big as the bee. Its vermicle, having issued from
the egg, has the appearance of a very small pediculus, of an orange
colour. They are often seen upon flowers, and, like the former
pediculus, attach themselves to such suitable _Andrena_ as may happen to
visit the flowers they are upon; and, it is said, that they are thus
conveyed by the bee to its domicile, and there feed to maturity upon the
larva of the bee. I have no faith in the correctness of this statement,
for it is not credible that so small a creature as the larva of an
_Andrena_ could fully feed the larva of so large a beetle. Observation
has not satisfactorily confirmed it, and the connection may be, as in
the former case, merely accidental.
Although, perhaps, not a strictly scientific course, it is certainly a
matter of convenience in very long genera to break them up into
divisions, framed upon external characters, readily perceptible, and, by
which means, the species sought for may be more readily found. This I
have done in the preceding list of the species, and which are based upon
very prominent features. A slight divarication from the typical
neuration of the wing is observed in some species, but it is not of a
sufficiently marked character to afford a divisional separation, and
even much less a subgeneric one. I have therefore passed it unnoticed.
The commencing entomologist will often find considerable difficulty at
first in determining the species of this genus, for so much depends upon
condition; and where the colour of the pubescence is the chief
characteristic, a very little exposure to the atmosphere much alters
their physiognomy, but time, patience, and perseverance will ripen the
novice into an adept. The connection of the males with the females, from
their ordinarily great dissimilarity, was only to be accomplished by
positive observation, but now that this, in the majority of cases, is
effected, good descriptions facilitate their discrimination.
The most conspicuous species are the _Hattorfiana_ and the _Rosæ_ for
size and colour; the _Schrankella_ is also a very pretty species; and
perhaps the commonest of all the _cingulata_ is the prettiest of all,
with its yellow nose and red abdomen; in the next section we may point
out the _longipes_ as being a very elegant insect,[3] as are also the
_chrysosceles_ and the _helvola_. In this section we find those most
subject to the attacks of the _Stylops_, for instance the _labialis_,
_convexiuscula_, _picicornis_, _Afzeliella_, _nigro-ænea_, _Trimmerana_,
_Gwynana_, etc. The whole of the third and fourth sections are splendid
insects, especially the _fulva_ in the last. The comparative rarity of
some results chiefly from an exceedingly local habitat. Many of the
species may be found everywhere where insects can be collected,
consequently, all over the United Kingdom. In all the three seasons of
the year, which prompt animal life, some of the species may be
collected, and the flowers they chiefly prefer are the catkins,
especially of the sallow, the early flowering-fruits, the hedge-row
blossoms, the heath, the broom, the dandelion, chickweed, and very many
others.
Footnote 3:
This insect was first captured by me, and with this, my manuscript
name, attached to it, it was distributed to entomologists with an
unsparing hand. The ordinary courtesy of the science has been, for the
describer, when not the capturer, to adopt and circulate the original
authority, and not to appropriate it. Similar buccaneering has been
practised with poor Bainbridge’s _Osmia pilicornis_, to which he had
attached this manuscript name, he being the first to introduce it,
having caught it at Birchwood.
-------
Genus 5. CILISSA, _Leach_.
(Plate V. fig. 1 ♂ ♀.)
MELITTA ** _c_, partly, Kirby.—ANDRENA, Fab. Latreille.
_Gen. Char._: HEAD transverse, scarcely so wide as the thorax, flat;
_ocelli_ in an open triangle on the vertex; _face_ flat; _clypeus_
transverse, margined; _labrum_ transverse, slightly rounded in front;
_mandibles_ bidentate; _cibarial apparatus_ moderately long; _tongue_
lanceolate, fringed with delicate hair; _paraglossæ_ about one-third the
length of the tongue, abruptly terminated, lacerate and setose at the
extremity; _labial palpi_ rather longer than the paraglossæ, the basal
joint considerably the longest, all the joints subclavate and
diminishing both in robustness and length to the apex; _labrum_ half the
length of the entire apparatus, its inosculation acutely triangular;
_maxillæ_ subhastate, as long as the tongue; _maxillary palpi_
six-jointed, less than half the length of the maxillæ, the joints short,
subclavate and decreasing gradually from the base to the apex. THORAX
densely pubescent, obscuring its divisions; _metathorax_ truncated;
_wings_ with three submarginal cells, and a fourth slightly commenced,
the second subquadrate and receiving the first recurrent nervure in its
centre, the second recurrent nervure issuing from beyond the centre of
the third submarginal cell; _legs_ all pilose, especially the posterior
pair, which have hair beneath the _coxæ_ and _trochanters_, above only
on their femoræ, but surrounding the _tibiæ_, and as dense externally
upon their _plantæ_; _claws_ distinctly bifid. ABDOMEN ovate, truncated
at the base, the segments banded at their apex, with decumbent down,
which becomes densely and widely setose on the fifth segment, the
terminal segment having a central triangular glabrous plate, carinated
down the centre, and very rigidly setose laterally.
The MALE scarcely differs, except in having the _antennæ_ less
distinctly geniculated, the flagellum taking a sweeping curve, the
_face_ and _clypeus_ much more pubescent, but the _legs_ sexually less
so; the sexes are much alike.
NATIVE SPECIES.
1. _tricincta_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 5 lines. (Plate V. fig. 1 ♂ ♀.)
_? Apis leporina_, Panzer.
2. _hæmorrhoidalis_, Fab. ♂ ♀.
_hæmorrhoidalis chrysura_, Kirby.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
This genus has been named without any reference to any peculiarity, Dr.
Leach having applied a Proper name to it to designate it.
The _Cilissa tricincta_ is perhaps most like the larger species of the
genus _Colletes_, both in markings and in the form of the body, but in
resemblance of form the second species participates. Although robust
insects, and as large as the larger _Andrenæ_, they are yet unprovided
with the same ample means for conveying pollen, being destitute of the
lock of hair upon the posterior trochanters and the sides of the
metathorax are less densely pubescent. The ground colour is brown. Their
economy is assumed to resemble that of _Andrena_, although it has not
been so closely investigated; for my own part I have never had the
opportunity of tracing it to its nidus, having always captured the
species upon flowers. They are fond of the trefoil (_Trifolium repens_),
and the _C. chrysura_ frequents the _Campanula rotundifolia_, as well as
the flowers of the throatwort (_Trachelium_). In their excursions they
are usually accompanied by their males. Both species are found in the
south and west of England.
Section 2. _With entire paraglossæ._
Subsection _c_. LINGUÆ ACUTÆ (acute tongues).
a. _With three submarginal cells to the wings._
Genus 6. HALICTUS, _Latreille_.
(Plate IV.)
MELITTA ** _b_, Kirby.
_Gen. Char._: HEAD transverse, flattish, scarcely so wide as the thorax;
_ocelli_ in an open triangle on the vertex, which is flat; _antennæ_
short, filiform, geniculated, scape quite or more than half as long as
the flagellum; _face_ flat, excepting in the centre just below the
insertion of the antennæ, where it is protuberant; _clypeus_
transversely lunulate, very convex; _labrum_ subquadrate, very convex,
with a central, linear, carinated appendage in front, nearly as long as
the basal portion; _cibarial apparatus_ moderate; _tongue_ very acute
and delicately fringed with short hair; _paraglossæ_ acute, about half
the length of the tongue; _labial palpi_ not quite so long as the
paraglossæ, the basal joint very long, the rest decreasing gradually in
length; _labium_ about as long as the tongue, its inosculation
emarginate; _maxillæ_ subhastate, rather longer than the tongue;
_maxillary palpi_ filiform, the basal joint the shortest, second the
longest, the rest decreasing in length. THORAX oval, usually pubescent,
sometimes glabrous; _prothorax_ inconspicuous, as are the bosses of the
mesothorax; _scutellum_ and _post-scutellum_ lunulate, the former
convex; _metathorax_ gibbous or truncated, but laterally pubescent even
in the glabrous species; _wings_ with three submarginal cells, and a
fourth sometimes commenced, the second subquadrate and receiving the
first recurrent nervure close to its extremity, the second being
received beyond the centre of the third submarginal cell [a slightly
different arrangement takes place in some of the species, which will be
noticed subsequently]; the _legs_ all setose, but the setæ not very
long, and the posterior _coxæ_ and _trochanters_ have long hair beneath;
the _claws_ bifid. ABDOMEN ovate, the terminal segment with a
longitudinal linear incision in its centre.
The MALES differ in having the antennæ as long or longer than the
thorax; the _labrum_ transverse, linear, and the _abdomen_ usually
elongate and cylindrical, and much longer than the head and thorax.
NATIVE SPECIES.
1. _xanthopus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 4-5 ½ lines. (Plate IV. fig. 1 ♂♀.)
_Lasioglossum tricingulum_, Curtis.
2. _quadricinctus_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 4-4½ lines.
_quadricinctus_, Kirby.
3. _rubicundus_, Christ. ♂ ♀. 4-5 lines.
_rubicundus_, Kirby.
4. _cylindricus_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 3-5 lines.
_malachura_, Kirby.
_fulvo-cincta_, Kirby.
_abdominalis_, Kirby.
5. _albipes_, Fabricius, ♂ ♀. 3-4 lines.
_albipes_, Kirby.
_obovata_, Kirby.
6. _lævigatus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3-4½ lines.
_lugubris_, Kirby.
7. _leucozonius_, Schrank, ♂. 3-4½ lines.
_leucozonius_, Kirby.
8. _quadrinotatus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2-3 lines.
9. _sexnotatus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀.
10. _lævis_, Kirby, ♀. 4 lines.
11. _fulvicornis_, Kirby, ♂. 4 lines.
12. _minutus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2½-3½ lines.
13. _nitidiusculus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2-3 lines.
14. _minutissimus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 1½-2½ lines. (Plate IV. fig. 3 ♂ ♀.)
15. _flavipes_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3-4 lines. (Plate IV. fig. 2 ♂ ♀.)
_seladonia_, Kirby.
16. _Smeathmanellus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2½-3½ lines.
17. _æratus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2½-3 lines.
18. _leucopus_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 3-3½ lines.
19. _morio_, Kirby, ♂ ♀. 2-2½ lines.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
This genus was named by Latreille from _ἁλίξω_, to _crowd_, or _collect
together_, from the fact of their nidificating in numbers on the same
spot.