THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 227 



hesperius Uliler, on Lake Mahopac, Putnaai Co., N.Y., and Rheumatohates 

 Rileyi Bergr., on various bodies of water in several localities in this near 

 vicinity. Passing now to a 3[)ecific consideration of each specimen, the 

 following notes iiave been made. Three specimens bear handwritten 

 locality labels. These are not very plain to me, but look (very roughly 

 imitated) like "M. 27, 7, 96." I cannot venture to guess what this may 

 mean, but it should appear from the original description, which I have 

 not seen. Two specimens are//;///c</ on one pin, one above the other as 

 is usual in indicating the sexes, and the other is mounted on a point. 

 The two on the pin bear a name-label : 



"Halobatopsis 

 Beginii 



Ashm." 

 in Ashmead's own handwriting. Both are dilapidated, but not to the 

 same extent as the fourth one mentioned further on, and both have still 

 the characters which enable one to recognize the genus and species. The 

 upper specimen (therefore, presumably, the male) possesses unmutilated 

 both antennae, the front legs, the right middle leg, and the left hind leg. 

 The left middle leg is lacking the tibia and tarsus and the right hind leg 

 the tarsus. The lower specimen (therefore, presumably, the female) has 

 lost the last three (?) joints of the left antenna, being otherwise in quite 

 good condition. In ''Ohio Naturalist" (I.e.), Bergroth remarks in referring 

 to the species under consideration : 'T am at a loss to make out why he 

 {Ashmead) has placed it in the genus Halobatopsis, as the first antennal 

 joint .... is described as 'distinctly longer than joints 2 and 3 

 combined.' The 2nd joint, too, is said to be 'longer than the third, the 

 latter being about three-fourths as long as the second.' Judging from the 

 description Halobatopsis Bcgi?iii A.ihm., belongs to a new genus." It is, 

 therefore, fortunate that these two specimens should possess antenna in 

 good condition, as the preceding makes evident. I deem it neither 

 necessary nor desirable to revert at length to these organs, for reasons 

 readily deducible from what follows, because these structures at once 

 determine the proper category of the two specimens. The upper one is 

 smaller than the fourth specimen referred to and clearly belongs on 

 antennal characters, even though we were to omit consideration of all 

 others, to Metrobates hesperius Uhler, and is a nymph in the 3rd (?) 

 instar. The lower one is an immature male of Rheiimatobates Rileyi 

 Bergroth, in about the 4th, or 5th and last, nymphal instar. Here again 

 the antennre, although not quite formed, begin to reveal the bizarre struc- 

 ture so characteristic of the males of this genus and the hind femora 



