Vol. xxiii] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 285 
and splitting.” Hagen, in his Synopsis of 1861, recognized 12 species 
within the limits of Dr. Walker’s monograph, 3 of the 12 being un- 
known to him and cited, without descriptions, from de Selys’ col- 
lection. At the same time he admitted two North Asiatic forms 
(crenata and palmata) as distinct. Scudder, in 1866, described propinqua 
and eremita as additional species. In 1875, Hagen listed 13 species 
relegating two of the three undescribed species of 1861 to the synonymy, 
identifying palmata Hag. with constricta Say, crenata Hag. with eremita 
Scud., scattering propinqgua among three previously described species: 
and adding two nomina nuda. The climax in the lumping process was 
attained by the reviewer whose heinousness is thus dispassionately de- 
scribed by Dr. Walker (p. 127). “This species [eremtta] was thought 
by Hagen (’75) to be the same as the Siberian Ae. crenata Hag., and 
Calvert (94), accepting this view, attempted to show the identity of 
Ae. eremita Scudd. with Ae. clepsydra Say. This study was based upon 
forty male specimens, including at least four species [!!*], but, al- 
though a careful piece of work, it takes no cognizance of the important 
characters found in the accessory genitalia of the males and the thoracic 
color-pattern.” 
Martin (Catal. Coll. Zool. Selys, 1908), adopting nearly all the ex- 
treme views of Hagen and of Calvert, could list but nine species in 
question. Then the tide turned with the appearance of Dr. Walker’s 
paper in the Canadian Entomologist for November and December, 1908, 
separating again several of the forms which Hagen and his followers 
had united, such as palmata and crenata, adding several new ones and 
recognizing a total of nineteen. That paper was an outline, taxonomi- 
cally, of the work now under review where (p. 8), Dr. Walker has 
accounted for the existence of the “lumping” thus: “The color-pattern 
in the genus Aeshna is on the whole very uniform, remarkably so in 
the North American species, and in the ordinary cabinet specimens the 
appearance of uniformity is exaggerated by the disappearance of the 
natural colors and the frequent obscurity of the markings. Hence Odon- 
atists generally have relied almost exclusively upon structural features in 
characterizing the species of this genus, particularly upon the abdominal 
appendages of the male, with the result that the species of Aeshna have 
been ‘lumped’ to an unusual degree and the belief has become prevalent 
that the coloration, though relatively uniform for the genus, is very 
variable within the limits of a given species.” 
From the zoogeographical standpoint, we may call attention to Dr. 
Walker’s remark (p. 56): “Although the number of described North 
American species of Aeshna is somewhat greater than that of the Palae- 
*These indicate our own sense of horror. 
