252 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Stenobothrus maculipennis, Scudd. Bost. Jour. Nat. Hist., VII., 

 458-459 (1862). 



Stenobothna propinquan%, Scudd. Ibid., VII., 461 (1862). 



Orphula pelidna, McNeill. Proc. Dav. Acad. Nat. Sc, VI., 235-239 

 (1897). 



OrpJiulella pelidna, Scudd. Can. Ent., XXXI., 179-187 (1S99). 



I found this species in large numbers in a tract of open marsh land 

 bordering the St. Clair River, just north of Sarnia. This piece of land 

 was dry when I visited it, but in the early summer was covered with 

 water. O. pelidna was found in the more bare places, where the ground 

 was dry and somewhat cracked. The males produced a rapid, rattling 

 sound when flying, like the various members of the Oedipodinre, but the 

 sound did not last more than about a second. Although the grass was 

 long where they occurred, they always alighted on the ground. 



Trimerotropis huroniana, Walk. 

 Trimerotropis huroniana, Walk. Can. Ent., XXXIV., 1 (1902). 

 This species has been fully described under the above reference, so 

 that it need only be alluded to here. 



Paroxya floridana, Thorn. 



Caloptenus floridanus, Tnom. Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., I., No. 

 2, 68 (1874). 



Paroxya atlantica, Scudd. (pars). Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., XIX., 

 29, 88 (1887). 



Paroxya floridana, Smith. Cat. Ins., N. J., 412 (1890). 



This insect was found in considerable numbers in a sedgy swamp 

 bordering a small stream at Arner, Ont. It is a southern form. 



Melanoplus Bruneri, Scudd. 



Melanoplus Bruneri, Scudd. Rev. Mel. 164, 1897. 



On Sept. 2, 1902, while collecting at Dvvight, in Northern Muskoka, 

 at the close of a fortnight's canoe trip in Algonquin Park, I captured a 

 single specimen of a Melanoplus, which I at once recognized as new to 

 Ontario. There was not time to make a thorough search for more 

 specimens, and none were found. The specimen is a male and agrees in 

 nearly all respects with M. Brtmeri as described in Scudder's Revision. 

 The chief point in the description which does not fit my specimen is the 

 statement that the interspace between the mesosternal lobes is more than 

 twice as long as broad in the male, whereas in my specimen it is slightly 

 less than twice as long as broad. The male cerci appear more upcurved 



