THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 223 



lication of Mr. Scudder's paper, but his letter of transmittal to Lieut. 

 Wheeler bears date Cambridge, Mass., May 29, 1876. 



I simply mention this in justice to myself. 



As I have here referred to this paper by Mr. Scudder, I may as well 

 correct another error he has fallen into in reference to Anabrus Halde- 

 manii Gir. He remarks (page 500) that "he [Thomas] further confuses 

 " his readers by stating that A. Haldemanii Gir. has the presternum dis- 

 " tinctly spined, whereas it is as clearly amucronate as the presternum of 

 " A. simplex." He falls into this error because he has not, or had not 

 then, seen a specimen of A. Haldemanii, which has the presternum dis- 

 tinctly spined. The description and figure given in Marcy's Red River 

 of Louisiana are so exact that with a true specimen in hand, as I now 

 have before me, there is no possibility of making a mistake. This species 

 is never, as I learn he supposes, found west of the Rocky Mountain 

 range, nor A. simplex east of it, unless possibly in Montana. 



Cratypedes Putnami Thos. 



Mr. A. J. Chipman, who visited Southern Colorado this season on 

 behalf of the U. S. Ent. Commission, was fortunate enough to obtain a 

 fine specimen of this species, in color. From this I can now give the 

 colors omitted in my original description : Base of the wings lemon yel- 

 low ; hind tibiae bright red. In the female the yellow spots of the elytra 

 are not so distinct as in the male ; the same is also true in reference to 

 the dark bands on the posterior femora. 



At the close of his " Century of Orthoptera " (Reprint from Pro- 

 ceedings Bost. Soc. Nat. Sci., vols. 12-20, 1879, pg. 84) Mr. Scudder, in 

 speaking of Hippiscus litiealus Scudd., remarks as follows : 



" Hippiscus lineatus. This species I had formerly described (in MSS.) 

 " under the new generic name Cratypedes, but before publishing con- 

 " eluded it best to include it in Hippiscus. I do not recollect that I have 

 " ever mentioned this name to any one and have never seen more than 

 " the single specimen of the species upon which I had proposed to found 

 " it, and which has never left my collection. It was therefore a complete 

 " mystery to me to find a closely allied species described by Mr. Thomas 

 " (Proc. Davenpt. Acad. Nat. Sci., I., 257-58) as Cratypedes Putnami, 

 "with the remark : 'I have placed this species in this genus with some 

 " ' hesitancy, yet it certainly agrees very closely with it.' I disclaim any 

 " proprietorship in the generic name, and do not know to what Mr. 



