ERYTHRODIPLAX. 251 
& Hay, U.S. N. M.: 3 9; Williamson, Hine, colls. Wlimsn., 0. S. U.: 5 3, 62); 
Costa Rica (coll. McLach.: 1 2 6), Bebedero and Santa Clara (Underwood, Tristan: 
13,3 2 5), Carrillo (Underwood: 1 3), Caché (Rogers: 4 3,1 9 6), Punta Arenas 
[1 ¢]; Panama? [2 ¢] (MC. Z.) (Edwards: 12, 1 2 6], Chiriqui [1 ¢, 1 2] 
(coll. McLach.), Colon (Howland, coll. Needham: 2 3,1 2), La Chorrera 5. 
Every month in the year but January is represented by specimens from one or 
other of the above-named localities. Guadalajara examples are dated from June 
to September, the “montezumoid” females July. ‘ Montezumoid” females from 
Escuinapa were taken in June, other individuals of both sexes in July and August. 
The relative frequency of the homeochromatic females in funerea is evidently 
greater than in wmbrata, the total numbers of the individuals listed above being, 
males 77, heterochromatic females 53 (including 14 “ montezumoid ”), homceochromatic 
females 22. 
2. Erythrodiplax umbrata. 
Libellula umbrata, Linn. Syst. Nat. edit. x. p. 545 (1758) *; Fabr. Spec. Ins. i. p. 522 (1781) ?* ; 
Burm. Handb. Ent. ii. p. 856 (1839) °; Ramb. Névr. p. 73 (1842)*; Selys in Sagra’s Hist. 
Cuba, Ins. p. 448 (1857)°; Hagen, Syn. Neur. N. Amer. p. 158 (1861)°; Proc. Bost. Soc. 
Nat. Hist. xi. p. 292 (1867)"; xviii. pp. 72, 84 (1875)°; Stett. ent. Zeit. xxix. p. 274 (1868)’; 
Uhler, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. xi. p. 297 (1867) *°; Calvert, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. xxv. 
p-. 78 (1898) **. . 
Erythrodiplax umbrata, Brauer, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, xviii. p. 723 (1868) *; Ris, Hamburg. 
Magalh. Sammelr., Odon. p. 41 (1904) *. 
Libella umbrata, Kolbe, Arch. f. Naturg. liv. 1, p. 167 (1888) ™. 
Trithemis umbrata, Kirby, Cat. Odon. p. 20 (1890)”’; Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) xiv. p. 263 
(1894) ; xix. p. 603 (1897); Hart, Ann. Rep. Roy. Bot. Gard. Trinidad, 1891, p. 9 
(1892); Cockerell, Journ. Inst. Jamaica, i. p. 257 (1893); Calvert, Proc. Calif. Acad. 
Sci. (3), Zool. i. p. 899 (1899) *; An. Mus. Nac. Buen. Aires, vii. p. 29 (1899); Prinzessin 
Therese, Berl. ent. Zeitschr. xlv. p. 260 (1900) ”. 
Libellula unifasciata, De Geer, Mém. Hist. Ins. iii. p. 557, t. 26. fig. 4 (entire $) (1778) *. 
Libellula fallax”, subfasciata™, tripartita™, ruralis*”, Burm. Handb. Ent. ii. pp. 855, 856 (1839) ; 
Calv. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. xxv. pp. 77, 78 (1898) **. 
Libellula flavicans, Ramb. Névr. p. 87 (1842) ”. 
Libellula fuscofasciata, Blanchard, Voy. Orbigny, vi. 2, p. 217, t. 28. fig. 5 (g in colours) 
(1837-43) *. 
Trithemis montezuma, Calv. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (3), Zool. i. p. 397 (1899) **. 
A few other references, adding nothing to knowledge of this species, are given by Hagen ’*. Mr. Kirby '* 
omits all mention of the most important article® on this species yet written ; he also refers (2. ¢. p. 32) 
* The adjectives “ atris” and ‘‘ alba” have changed places in this description, an error which does not 
exist in other descriptions of this species by Fabricius. 
