94 The Ohio Naturalist [Vol. XIII, No. 5, 



ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE ODONATA OF 



OHIO. 



Jas. S. Hine. 



The "Odonata of Ohio" by Dr. David S. Kelhcott was pub- 

 lished in March, 1899. At that time 9S species had been taken in 

 the state and all were represented in Professor Kelhcott 's collec- 

 tion. Anax longipes Hagen was mentioned as a possible member 

 of Ohio's fauna, but no specimens had been procured and we 

 have no further infomiation in regard to it at the present time. 



A few misstatements have been noted in Dr. Kelhcott 's articles 

 concerning dragonflies, largely unavoidable at that time because 

 of the small amount of work that had been done on some of the 

 genera. Recent investigations have revealed the fact that some 

 additional species were at hand in 1S99 but were associated with 

 nearly related ones on account of not being described. Finally a 

 number of species not previously reported for Ohio have been 

 collected in various sections of the state and by various collectors, 

 most usually while engaged in preparing general faunal collections. 



On account of the few misstatements and the several addi- 

 tions that have been made to the number of species taken 

 within the limits of the state, it seems desirable at this time to 

 print some statements for the purpose of bringing the list of Ohio 

 dargonfiies up to date. In Volume I of the Ohio Naturalist, 

 page 13, are given a few additions and corrections, but since some 

 of these should be mentioned again, I have thought best at this 

 time to give such information as has been collected since the 

 appearance of The Odonata of Ohio. 



An attractive species of Enallagma was considered an unde- 

 scribed species and named Enallagma fischeri by Dr. Kcllicott. 

 After studying a large amount of material Mr. E. B. WiUiamson 

 came to the conclusion that E. fischeri is the same as Agrion 

 antennata Say and Dr. Calvert concurred. I believe that Wil- 

 liamson is correct in his conclusion in this matter, but due deference 

 to Dr. Kcllicott merits the statement that Say's description is 

 rather brief and does not fully explain distinctive characters. 

 After one is well acquainted with the dragonfly fauna of the section 

 where Say procured his specimens it is possible to reach the 

 proper conclusion by the process of elimination. In other words 

 there appears to be no other species in this region that answers so 

 well Say's description as the one in question. 



At the time when Dr. Kcllicott did his work on Ohio dragon- 

 flies some of the species of the genus Gomphus were not well 

 defined, consequently a few of his detenninations have been 



