1918 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 73 



perfect quagmire, my clothes were wringing wet, my boots were sodden and cheeped 

 and slithered at every step ; one of the dreariest, most draggle-tailed trips I ever 

 made ; and I verily believe I would have been on the road yet, but for what I knew 

 were the contents of my cyanide bottle, twelve genuine specimens of Anaglyptus 

 enigmaticus including both sexes of the species. 



The rest of the month proved wet and cold; the wood was so distant that it 

 could only be visited at weekends; on my next trip I found the choke-cherry all 

 over, and on the dogwood and viburnum that were rioting in its place I could find 

 no further trace of the beetle. Eight on the north margin of the wood, however, 

 on spiked maple, I captured one solitary specimen on June 13th and two on June 

 18th. Sixteen specimens — counting the unique capture of 1907 — made a fine series 

 for comparison. But I found, now, reason to deplore having put my mating pair 

 into the cyanide bottle instead of segregating them. Not that I had a shadow of 

 doubt myself about this being a genuine species; I was absolutely certain of that 

 before I ever saw a pair together; but how could I convince my fellow-collectors? 

 As soon as I got the insects out of the killing-bottle, I examined the antennae: all 

 fifteen specimens had the second joint less than half the length of the fourth; not 

 one of them, therefore, was the female of Microclytus gazellula; equally certain 

 was it they were all one species and comprised both sexes. Some days later I 

 relaxed them all carefully on damp blotting paper in a covered tin box, and with a 

 fine pair of forceps drew the antennae taut over the back in a straight line parallel 

 with the suture ; in eight specimens the antennae were as long as the body, in eight 

 they just overlapped the median band of pubescence. 



I enclosed a pair in a box which I posted to Mr. C. A. Frost, of Framingham, 

 Mass., asking him if these were not the insect Casey had named for him Microclytus 

 frosti. Then I sent to Eochester for a micrometer scale and to Guelph for the loan 

 of one or two specimens of M. gazellula from the Society's collections, explaining 

 that I wished to make a comparative study. Presently came a letter from Mr. 

 Frost that my insect luas his insect, and both (he believed) were Dr. LeConte's 

 insect M. gihhulus. Next came a parcel from Guelph containing two more speci- 

 mens of the identical insect I had just captured, both labelled Microclytus gazellula. 

 I then wrote to Mr. Frost and to some other collectors in the States for specimens 

 of the genuine M. gazellula, but not one of them so far has been able to secure a 

 specimen for me. For several months I advertised in the Canadian Entomologist 

 but with a like want of success. 



In the autumn of 1916 I got a letter from Mr. Frank Mason, of Philadelphia, 

 to say that the beetle I wanted was extremely rare and that he had only a single 

 specimen; his letter incidentally served to complicate matters by declaring among 

 other things that the insect in question was now listed not as Microclytus gazellula, 

 Hald., but as Anaglyptus compressicollis, Castenau and Gory; for it at once began 

 to dawn on me that if there were two insects so similar as to have long been mis- 

 taken for one another, the problem of nomenclature was likely to be no less com- 

 plicated than that of my capture's natural status ; unless the types of Castenau and 

 Gory's description in the thirties and of Haldeaiian's description in the fifties had 

 been preserved, no one would ever know which of these two little jokers had sat in 

 either studio for his portrait. 



For my part I was drawn rather to the question of the insect's true place in 

 nature, and proceeded to apply, among other things the micrometer scale I had 

 purchased from Bausch and Lomb to a solution of the problem. To supplement 

 the single specimen of M. gazellula in my cabinet, I borrowed Dr. Watson's genuine 

 example of 1907 from Port Hope, and then selected several specimens (male and 

 female) of my insect that tallied in size with these two. The examination resutted 



6 E.s. 



