rohwer: notes on sawfues 513 



Tenthredo (Nematus) melanocephala Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, 

 nomen nudum. 1835. 



Never described, name used by Hartig in 1837. 



Tenthredo (Nematus) ventralis Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, nomen 

 nudum. 1835. 



Refers to a species described in 1824 by Say and now known as 



Pteronidea ventralis (Say). 



Tenthredo (Nematus) palUcornis Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, nomen 

 nudum. 1835. 



Described by Norton in 1861 and treated by Marlatt as Pontania. 

 Marlatt is in error, the type is in Harris collection and bears no. 183. 

 It is synonymous with Diphadmis appendiculatus (Hartig). 



Tenthredo (Nematus) fulvipes Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, nomen 

 nudum. 1835. 



Species described by Norton in 1861 but name preoccupied by Fallen. 

 The type of Norton's species is under no. 357 in Harris' collection and 

 is a single male in poor condition. What Marlatt considered as this 

 is now known as Amauronematus semirufus Kirby. Norton's type is 

 not Amauronematus, but the name fulvipes is preoccupied, 



Tenthredo (Nematus) labrata Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, nomen 

 nudum. 1835. 



Described by Norton in 1861. The type is under no. 182, Harris 

 collection, but notes have been lost and standing of species will have to 

 be investigated. 



Tenthredo (Nematus) stigmatus Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, nomen 

 nudum. 1835. 



Described by Norton in 1861. The type is a single female with the 



head and thorax badly eaten and is under no. 435 in Harris collection. 



It is what is now known as Pachynematus extensicomis (Norton) and is 



a synonym of that species. 



Tenthredo (Nematus) monochroma Harris, Cat. Ins. Mass. 583, 

 nomen nudum. 1835. 



Described by Norton in 1861. The type is under no. 436 in Harris 

 collection. It has only thorax, right wings (except apex) and right 

 hind leg to tarsus remaining. These remains do not indicate that 

 Marlatt was correct in placing this species in Pteronidea. It seems that 

 it is Amauronematus and Dyar^ was probably correct in 1894 when 

 he considered the species which Marlatt later described as Amaurone- 



* Can. Ent. 26: 187. 1894. 



