February 18(35.] 



PS re HE. 



199 



broad in front and so very narrow 

 behind, the broad band between and 

 joining the eye patches, the absence of 

 other markings on the head, the ante- 

 rior position of the bands on the meto- 

 notuiii and first three abdominal seg- 

 ments, the anterior and posterior narrow 

 bands of the mesonotum, the absence of 

 markings on the fifth and sixth abdom- 

 inal segments, the very long fourth 

 abdominal segment and the compara- 

 tively short antennae. 



Remarks. — The drawing of this 

 species (Fig. 2) was made from a live 

 specimen by Mr. J. H. Emerton and, 

 as in most of his sketches of tliese soft 

 insects, it is too broad, due to pressure 

 needed to hold them still while drawing. 



Kntomobrya decemfasciata. 



We have added Fig. 3 drawn by 

 Emerton, which shows what we call 

 Degeeria decemfasciata Packard , 



which according to Brooks (Linn. 

 Journ. Zoology, Vol. XVII, May, 

 18S3, p. 275) ^ Podura fasciata Say 

 ^ Entomobrya rmdtifasciata Tullb. 



Mr. Macgillivray in his catalogue of 

 Thysaiiourans of North America (Can. 

 ent. vol. XXIII, Dec. 1S91, p. 273) 

 makes this species and Tullberg's 

 synonyms of Podura fasciata Say. 



Mr. Brooks puts a question mark 

 after l>oth Packard's and Say's species, 

 having we presume never examined the 

 forms. We have never seen Tullberg's 

 species, but Mr. Macgillivray kindly 

 sent us alcoholic specimens of what he 

 regarded Say's species and we would 

 very reluctantly regard them the same 

 as the species we figure as Packard's 

 D. lO-fasciata. To try and settle the 

 identity of our form with Packard's, we 

 sent specimens to the author of the 

 species but could not get him to express 

 a positive opinion whether they were 

 the same or not. When authors cannot 

 recognize their own species from speci- 

 mens, what can those who have only 

 their descriptions to go by be expected 

 to do.? 



We understand that Packard's types 

 were deposited in the collections at 

 Cambridge, and if still in condition and 

 accessible we hope some time to look 

 them over. Say may have drawn up 

 his description from young specimens 

 of Packard's species, but we doubt it, 

 and would prefer to hold both as good 

 species until the forms are thoroughly 

 studied and also hold both distinct 

 from E. multifasciata Tullberg until 

 foreign and American specimens are 

 carefully compared. 



