INSECTS FROM MIOCENE OF FLORISSANT, COLORADO 715 



stigma; three discoidal and three cubital cells; no closed cells beyond 

 the discoidals; upper discoidal beginning at about level of end of 

 subcosta, and ending a short distance beyond middle of lower side 

 of stigma; second discoidal more produced basally than in R. 

 rhodopica, its base not invaded by fork R2-R3, which falls some 

 distance beyond its end; cell in fork R-Rj scarcely hexagonal, its 

 lower median face very short; R2 branched at level of end of lower 

 side of stigma, its upper branch branching again with each of the 

 branches forked near margin, its lower branch simple; R3 forked 

 close to wing-margin; R4 simple at end, but Rj forked; six forks on 

 lower margin of wing, not counting R3 or R^; cells below Cui (not 

 the cubital cells of descriptions) nearly as in R. rhodopica, except 

 that the anal cells are different in detail, two large ones joined by a 

 very narrow isthmus. 



Posterior wing about 10 mm. long; apical field practically as in 

 anterior wing, base and costa differing as usual. The end of R2 is 

 different, the second division of the upper branch being simpler 

 while the lower branch has a very long narrow fork; R3 is simple at 

 end; there are six marginal forks basad of Rg, as in the upper wing, 

 but the first is so long that its corner joins the end of the third 

 discoidal cell; an almost rectangular cross is formed near the 

 middle of the wing where the cross-veins leave the media above 

 and below. 



Miocene shales of Florissant, Wilson Ranch (H. F. Wickham). 

 The upper wing is the type; the lower wing is on a different slab, but, 

 from its close resemblance to the upper, evidently belongs to the 

 same species. In Rohwer's table in Am. Jour. Sci., XXVIII, 534, 

 this runs to R. mortua Rohwer, but differs by the much larger num- 

 ber of cross-veins in the costal area, subcosta joining costa nearer 

 stigma, and marginal V-shaped cells much more numerous. It is 

 no doubt allied to R. mortua and R. exhumata CklL, but there are so 

 many small differences that I can only consider it distinct. There 

 is also much resemblance to Archiraphidia tumulata (Scudd.), but 

 there are too many differences to regard it as a variety of that 

 species. 



Modern species of Raphidia show so much variation in the 

 venation, even on the two sides of the same animal, that fossil 



