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.