2 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [Feb., 14 
cn 
Legs paler, last femora largely pale; pallidus, submedianus, 
subapicalis. 
MATERIAL EXAMINED AND LITERATURE. 
Gomphus pallidus Rambur. 
Through the great kindness of Mons. Guillaume Severin and 
Mr. Samuel Henshaw, I have been able to study the classical 
material of de Selys and Hagen. De Selys’ material consists 
of one male and three females, including the two female types 
of Rambur. In addition Mons. Severin sent me the single 
specimen of G. villosipes in the de Selys collection. For con- 
venience I have designated these specimens numerically. 
De Selys 1,—G. villosipes male, a slightly teneral, badly faded speci- 
men, labelled in de Selys’ hand, “G. villosipes 2, Philadelphia, Cal- 
vert.”* This is lightly smaller and less robust than Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois specimens in my collection. However, I 
believe all represent a single species. 
De Selys 2,—labelled, “Comphus pilipes. Hag. 6 (4 de pallidus.”) 
“N. America.”. “Gomphus pallidus R. @.” 
De Selys 3,—labelled “Gomphus pallidus R. 2.” 
of Wis. Drf. Vol. IX, April 1911, Bull. Wis. Nat. Hist. Soc. pp. 36, 
37, plate IV. “A single male in the Brooklyn Museum, locality un- 
known.”) The type of lentulus is stated to be in the collection of 
Mr. C. A. Hart, but this is a mistake as the following quotation from 
a letter of April 21, 1913, from Mr. Hart shows: “As to lentulus a 
university student captured it, and I attempted to name it. It was 
badly broken and I attempted to mend it; in so doing I disturbed the 
genitalia, but as I had already studied these carefully and they seemed 
unlike anything I had ever seen, I managed to keep them about as 
they were. The question of the location of the type has come up before. 
I can only say that it is not in the State Laboratory Collections, so 
far as I know, and that I have no dragonfly collection.” This loss 
is the more unfortunate from the fact that lentulus, like australis, was 
not figured, nor were characters for separating them from their 
closest allies pointed out. It seems to me that australis is probably not 
closely related to species included under Arigomphus in this paper. 
The larva of australis (supposition) is known, but it is possibly pal- 
lidus, since the Illinois specimens, described by Needham and Hart 
as pallidus, are not that species. 
*[As I never obtained villosipes in Philadelphia, it is likely that this 
specimen is from one of the Pennsylvania localities cited on p. 245, 
Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. vol. xx, with my original locality dabel 
displaced—P. P. CAtvert.] 
