*COMMENT ~ Character notes. 
 
*CHARACTER NOTES 
#1. ~ (alternatively) is here used to indicate sometimes not
unreasonably included in or reduced to. 
#3. Accurate measurements for most families are hard to come by, and
the data reflected in this character (see the adjoining one in the
natural order version of the character list) are unreliable. On the
other hand, it is absurd to ignore for identificatory purposes the
large differences in size between (for example) bumble-bees and
cynipids. At early stages of an identification, some useful separation
will sometimes be achieved, while showing due caution, by entering two
or more adjoining states of this character (e.g., 1-2 or 3-4). 
#4. Most of the length data recorded here are quoted from general
accounts of the families, and accurate measurements reflecting their
British species contents have not yet been entered. However, while the
recorded ranges are unreliable in detail for identificatory purposes,
the ranges given are likely to exceed the true level of variation.
When pursuing identifications, therefore, failure to separate families
via this character should be a more likely outcome than erroneous
assignment. 
#9. Social: implies social organisation. Insects which merely form
colonies of nests in close proximity are treated as solitary. 
#35. Cenchri: paired anterolateral protrusions from the metanotum,
which are universally stated to be present in all Symphyta except
Cephidae. \par{}They are here recorded as lacking from all the
families of Apocrita, although their absence is never explicitly
recorded in the literature seen (exemplifying, yet again, the
non-comparative inadequacy of routine taxonomic descriptive
technique). 
#60. Trochantellus: ostensibly an articulated, additional segment of
the trochanter (q.v.), but actually the proximal end of the femur. It
is detectable in most Hymenoptera, but is larger and more freely
articulated in Symphyta and parasitic Apocrita. \par{}Trochanter: a
short segment of the leg, interposed between the coxa and the femur. 
#63. The data in tibial spurs as compiled here are unsatisfactory, in
the absence of unambiguous comparative data on their occurrence on
fore-, mid- and hind-legs of Hymenoptera in general. \par{} A modified
distal tibial spur (calcar) occurs on the fore-legs of many
Hymenoptera, and in association with a brush of hairs (strigil)
borne in an emargination of the basitarsus constitutes an elegant
cleaning mechanism for the antennae. On hind legs, calcars are
seemingly restricted to the supposedly highly evolved families
constituting the Aculeata, where they are used to clean the gaster,
wings and mid-legs. Here, either a calcar is developed from the hind
tibial spur, or both spurs are variously modified, and the cleaning
mechanism is completed by a dense brush of hairs on the inner distal
surface of the tibia and sometimes on the basitarsus. 
#81. Note the essential distinction to be made between parasitic,
referring to the general life-style of a species (q.v.); and the same
term when it relates, as here, to the feeding habits of individuals.
The different concepts are often confused in entomological literature.
\par{}In practice, the distinction between parasitic and predatory
is not at all clear. In any case, the requisite details are sometimes
elusive, the insects behaviour can be complex and hard to categorise,
and there may be considerable variations on themes within individual
families. In Apocrita-Parasitica and socially parasitic bees in
particular, where the usual definitions of parasitism versus predation
tend to break down, behaviour referable to the one condition sometimes
succeeds the other. 
 
