480 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [June, 



by Scudder on a misidentification, this name could not stand even if 

 Blatchley's species were not an absolute synonym of Scudder's 

 N. carolinus, as a comparison of a topotypic series of the former from 

 Blatchley with the type of the latter shows us beyond the slightest 

 doubt. Blatchley cannot in any way be criticised for believing the 

 species undescribed, for Scudder, having examined specimens for 

 him, identified individuals of Nemohius bruneri (described in the 

 present paper and then known only by the latter from specimens 

 bearing Bruner's invalid name Cyrtoxyphus (?) variegatus) as Nemohius 

 carolinus, and advised him to describe specimens of true Nemohius 

 carolinus, Scudder's own species, as new. This great carelessness 

 resulted in Nemohius carolinus being recorded as Nemohius exiguus 

 by Bruner (with a query) in 1893, Lugger in 1898, Blatchley in 1903, 

 Mead in 1904, Isely and Rehn and Hebard in 1905, and Brimley in 

 1908. 



In 1893, Bruner recorded the species as N. volaticus with a query. 



In 1894, Beutenmiiller described Nemohius affinis, which species 

 was two years later correctly placed in the synonymy under carolinus 

 by Scudder, but which name was used by Smith in 1900 and 1910. 



In 1896 and 1900, Scudder recorded specimens of A^. cuhensis and 

 N. palustris as the present species, specimens of which latter he also 

 recorded as N. cuhensis. His discussion of Provancher's "Nemohius 

 {Anaxipha) septentrionalis" in the former paper is incorrect. 



Lugger's 1898 record of A^. socius should probably apply to the 

 present species. 



In 1902, E. M. Walker misidentified a large series of the present 

 species from Ontario as N. palustris, and in 1904 believing these records 

 wrong corrected the name to N. confusus. 



The same year he described Nemohius angusticollis, placing the 

 specimens from which the above incorrect records were given in the 

 typical series. This name is an absolute synonym of A^. carolinus, 

 as was first stated by E. M. Walker himself in 1909. 



Rehn and Hebard, in 1905 and 1911, mistook macropterous 

 specimens of this insect for N. cuhensis and so recorded them. 



Morse, in 1906, repeated Scudder's incorrect records of 1896 of the 

 present species under A'^. palustris. 



The same year Kirby, realizing Blatchley's name A^. exiguus 

 invalid, proposed as a new name Nemohius janus; this name was 

 used by Rehn in 1910 and twice by AUard in 1911. 



Specimens Examined. — 418: 185 males, 225 females, and 8 nymphs. 



