130 r November, 



o£ tlie Royal Dublin Society (now Science and Art Museum, Dublin), 

 which I was then inclined to refer to A. Jongipes, described from a ? 

 in the Zurich Museum from Georgia (Abbot). Through the kindness 

 of A. G. More, Esq., T.L.S., Curator of the Museum, I have been able 

 to again examine this insect. I find one serious error in my original 

 notes (p. 228) ; the length of the posterior femora is there given as 

 "19 mm.," it should have been "14 mm." The other measurements 

 and notes agree. I omitted to notice the membranule ; it is entirely 

 yelloioish-cinereous, with no indication of having originally been 

 particoloured. The top of the front is utterly without markings, 

 and concolorous with the face. Upon re-comparing Hagen's detailed 

 description of the ? (Verb. z.-b. Wien, 1867) I note the follow- 

 ing special discrepancies not previously alluded to : the neuration 

 is said to be black, here the nervures are mostly pitchy-brown and the 

 network reddish ; the membranule is said to be black with white base, 

 here it is uniformly pale as above stated ; the markings on the abdomen 

 there noticed are here absent, or have become obsolescent. Therefore, 

 I now do not feel quite confident as to the identity of this example 

 with A. Jongipes, which latter should rest on the authoi'ity of the ? in 

 the Zurich Museum (which I have not seen). I thought it advisable 

 to compare the Dublin mutilated ^ with a ^ oi A. Junius of the same 

 expanse of wings. Putting on one side the obvious discrepancies in 

 the design of the top of the front, &c., I find structural differences 

 of importance : in Junius the top of the front is narrower and more 

 produced ; the occiput is more extended between the eyes (hence the 

 eyes are less contiguous) ; the posterior legs are perceptibly shorter ; 

 the abdomen (to the end of the 6th segment) is shorter ; in the 

 Dublin insect the transverse supplementary median suture on the 2nd 

 segment is interrupted in the middle (as is stated by Hagen for 

 longipes), and the space between is filled-in by a somewhat triangular 

 coarsely-granulose plate (in Junius this suture is not interrupted, but 

 is strongly augulose in the middle). If, therefore, this Dublin example 

 be not longipes (and there are reasons why it should not be so), I do 

 not know what it is. I have shown that other Dragon-flies in the 

 Dublin collection apparently came from Abbot, but no record exists 

 to that effect. 



Anax tristis, Hag. (Verb. z.-b. Grcs. Wien, 1867, p. 35), and A. 

 Goliath, De Selys (Eev. et Mag. d. Zool., 1872, p. 178). I incline to 

 the opinion that these represent ? and J respectively of one species. 

 So far as I am aware, Hagen has only seen the ? , and De Selys and 



