LETHITES REYNESII. 39 



the other) being blended. The object is so well preserved that one can see 

 throughout the parallel series of minute punctures forming the points of inser- 

 tion for the scales, outlines of the latter of which I have failed to discover. 

 The wing is 28-5" 1 " 1 long, the tip of the cell being distant 15 mm from the base 

 of the wing; the costal nervure is inflated for a distance of 6'5 mm -, and the 

 extreme width of this portion is l lnm -; the rows of punctures indicating the 

 former insertion of the scales are -12 mni - apart. 



Of the body itself nothing can be predicated, unless it be that the form of 

 the abdomen and the appearance of its tip lead us to conjecture that the speci- 

 men was a female which had deposited most of her eggs, or in which they 

 were but partially developed. 



At the anterior upper extremity of the head is a dark prominence which 

 seems to be the terminal joint of a palpus; it extends 'J5 mm ' beyond the head 

 and is of a nearly uniform width (2 mm- ), scarcely tapering, with a rounded 

 tip. The basal portion of an antenna, 5 mm - long, is slender and apparently be- 

 gins to increase slightly and very gradually in size, as in the genus (Eneis 

 Hubn. A finely impressed line, 7-25 mm - long, appears to be the unrolled, though 

 slightly curved tongue. 



One of the hind femora projects 2'5 mm ' beyond the body; its tibia and tarsi 

 are stretched in a single line, at an angle with it, but as the tip of what is ap- 

 parently the other hind femur strikes them beyond the tip of their own femur, 

 it is impossible to say whether they do not overlap, or are not overlaid by, the 

 tibia and tarsi of the opposite side; their united length on the stone is 5-6 mm -; 

 but if both hind pairs are present, their probable length is 4'5 mm -. There are 

 also some remnants of the other legs, but in so fragmentary and confused a 

 state that nothing can be determined from them, nor anything surmised of the 

 length or structure of the front pair. 



In the illustration of the fore wing given in the Revue et Magazin de 

 Zoologie (fig. B), and copied in the Geological Magazine (fig. 3), the artist 

 neglected to mark the position of the spot npon the wing. This is given in 



