1913.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 451 



Measurements {in millimeters) . 



Oajaca (?), Omilteme, 



Mexico. Guerrero, Mexico. 



9 9 



Length of body 9 . 10 . 



Length of pronotum 2.^ 



■Caudal width of pronotum 2.7 



Length of tegmina 2.7 



Length of caudal femur 6. 6.4 



•Greatest width of caudal femur 2.5 



Length of ovipositor 4.5 4.3 



Color iVofes.— The coloration of this species shows a similarity to 

 that of the European N. sylvestris. Head and dorsum of pronotum 

 •chestnut, maxillary palpi yellowish with distal portion of ultimate 

 Joint dark brown. Dorsal field of tegmina straw color, lateral lobes 

 of pronotum and lateral field of tegmina very dark brown. Body 

 and limbs brown, somewhat tinged with reddish. 



Distribution. — The present species is known from probably but 

 three specimens, these taken in the states of Guerrero and Oaxaca, 

 Mex. 



Biological Notes. — All of the known specimens of the present 

 species are brachypterous. 



Synonymy.— In 1869, Walker very inadequately described N. mexi- 

 canus from Oaxaca, Mex., which species Saussure, in 1874, synon- 

 ymized with his A^. toltecus (described in 1859 from Mexico, probably 

 Oaxaca). Scudder, however, in 1896, resurrected mexicanus without 

 having examined the type, and the specimens so recorded at that 

 time were so quoted in the Biologia by Saussure the following year, 

 without doubt because Scudder's recent revision of the North Ameri- 

 can species of Nemohius should have indicated that his knowledge 

 of the North American members of the genus was superior to that of 

 others. It is the opinion of the present author that Saussure was 

 entirely correct in synonymizing mexicanus with his toltecus, and in 

 the present paper the opinion which he held in 1874 is followed. We 

 have not been able to find the type of mexicanus Walker, but we have 

 before us the series of specimens which Scudder considered mexicanus, 

 and it is our opinion that these do not fit Walker's original description, 

 but that that description agrees much better with the description 

 .and the specimen examined of toltecus. We are further strengthened 

 in this opinion by the series of Nemohius which Scudder considered 

 toltecus in the same paper of 1896, but which in fact belong to the 

 very different N. carolinus neomexicanus, which series is now before us. 



