BEITISH DEAGONFLIES OF THE OLDER ENGLISH AUTHORS. 41 



was based exclusively on a Lophyrus, and should apparently be 

 adopted. The name Nycteridium, Giinther, 1864, as applied to a 

 genus of reptiles, will have to be changed. 



In this same work of Gistel's we have Caliendra proposed 

 for Chrysantheda, Perty, Matella for the geometrid Ephyra (not 

 Epkyra, Peron, 1809), Marmaryga for Hypoderma, Latr., Gyra 

 for Phycis, Fab., and a number of other substitutions which 

 should be critically examined by someone who has the leisure 

 and opportunity. 



Mesilla Park, New Mexico, U.S.A. 



BEITISH DRAGONFLIES OF THE OLDER ENGLISH 



AUTHORS. 



By W. J. Lucas, B.A., F.E.S. 



1. Moses Harris's ' Exposition of English Insects,'' 1782. 



In this book, which consists of a number of plates, moderately 

 well printed and hand-coloured, together with descriptive letter- 

 press in English and French, seven plates are devoted to 

 dragonflies. 

 Plate XII. 

 Large Brown = ^'sc/ma ^mwtZis (fig. 1, <^ ; 2, ? ; 3, nymph (very 

 poor) ; 4, face). 

 Plate XVI. 



Large Green.^ Mschna cyanea (fig. 1 ^ and ? ; 2, eggs). 

 Plate XXIII. 



Forcipata ? = Corduleyaster annulatus ? (fig. 3). 

 Anguis (? =Mschna cyanea $ (fig. 4). 

 Plate XXVII. 



Coluberculus= ? (fig. 1). [JE. mixta, M. juncea, and M. ca^ndea 

 have all been suggested as the insect described by Harris under 

 the name of culuberculus ; but it does not seem possible to 

 decide which he intended, or whether it might not have been 

 B. pratense, the female of which is figured on the same plate, 

 and which also would be on the wing in June.] 

 ?eueB.= Cordulia anea (fig. 2). [There seems no good reason for 



supposing that this is S. metallica as some have suggested.] 

 Sisi)is = Bracliytron pratense 2 (fig. 3). [The thorax is too red.] 

 Plate XXIX. 



in.im.\xs= Pyrrhosomanymphula {6g.l, ? ; 2, ,3^ ). [The description is 

 better than the figures, the male being especially poorly coloured.] 

 sereus = Ena I h(gma cyathigenim possibly (fig. 3, ? ; 4:,^). 

 lucifugus = ^f/rio« 2^^^Ma possibly (fig. 5, <? ; 6, $ , ft, nymph). 

 [With about equal probability (ereus might be cyathigerum; and 

 lucifugus, puella. The red eyes must be a mistake, except for 

 minius. The nymph is very poor.] 



ENTOM. FEBRUARY, 1900. E 



