Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology 27 



Hagen's collection. The latter material consists now of a 

 single female, and there is no way of determining whether or 

 not other specimens formerly existed. The figure of 

 aurantiacum by Menger is of the type or one of the type speci- 

 mens, collected by Clausen. Calvert (4) relying on de Selys' 

 description alone, identified material from Rio de Janeiro, 

 Brazil, and Sapucay, Paraguay, as aurantiacum. The Menger 

 fisfure serves to confirm the correctness of his determination. 

 Later Ris (7) identified specimens from Argentina as aur- 

 antiacum. 



The female in the Hagen collection bears the following writ- 

 ten labels: "Von Heyer-Buenos Ayres", "//. aurantiacum 

 female", a black-bordered label "H. aurantiacum Sel.", and 

 the small printed label "Hagen." I have discussed this speci- 

 men briefly in the key to females of groups i and 2, and in 

 footnote 6. (See also figures 23 and 140.) It certainly is not 

 the same species as the females identified by Calvert (4) as 

 aurantiacum, and, if I am right in believing that Calvert's 

 identification is correct, this specimen must be some other 

 species than aurantiacum. If I am correct in thinking cinna- 

 momeiim is a synonym of ochracenm, and if the female in the 

 Hagen collection labelled ochraceum is correctly named, then 

 the female, labelled aurantiacum, cannot be ochraceum. 



In pronouncing the Hagen female labelled aurantiacum as 

 specifically distinct from the material so determined by Cal- 

 vert, I have relied largely on the form of the hind lobe of the 

 prothorax. It is improbable but possible that aurantiacum in 

 its range varies in this character to the extent shown by fig- 

 ures 140 and 142. That the hind lobe does vary to a consider- 

 able length extent however, or that two species are confused 

 under one name is shown by a comparison of the material 

 from Brazil and from Paraguay (Calvert 4), all of which is 



