BORNEAN DRAGONFLIES. 73 



t)r. Ris, who believes it to be rightly referred to the present 

 species. He observes that the shape of the posterior prothoracic 

 margin is similar to that of A. wallacei $ , but not identical with 

 it. It is gently convex, with marked lateral angles. The colouring 

 is very different from that of the female A . wallacei, and approxi- 

 mates to the colouring of the male. The dorsal sui'face of the pro- 

 thorax and thorax is bronze-green, their sides a pale pearly green ; 

 under surfaces and legs whitish yellow. There is a complete longi- 

 tudinal black line on the posterior surfaces of the femurs, black 

 spines, and black articulations. The abdomen has segments 1 and 

 2 bronze-green above, dull yellow below; the remaining segments 

 are of a dull brown colour, paler below, progressively darker from 

 before backwards. 



Length of abdomen 32 mm., of hind wing 20 mm. 



The head is too much crushed and shrivelled to permit of any 

 description. 



6. Amphicnemis sp. 



2 $ $ . Baram, 14.10.10. 



Length of abdomen 33'5 mm., of hind wing 20 mm. 



LTpper surface of head entirely dark metallic green. Prothorax 

 red-orange, rather paler below ; its posterior dorsal margin gently 

 convex, produced on either side into a fine backwardly directed 

 short spur. Thorax with a rather narrow bright metallic-green 

 band, succeeded laterally by blood-red colouring, which fades into 

 a dull orange-red on the under surface ; alar sinuses metallic 

 green. 



Abdomen : segments 1 and 2 lustrous brown above, each with a 

 terminal metallic-green i-ing. The rest of the abdomen brown 

 above, pale whitish brown below, darker posteriorly. 



Pterostigmata gi'ey-brown with pale margin. 



Legs red, tarsi whitish yellow, articular markings black, spines 

 dark brown. 



The colouring of these specimens resembles very closely that of 

 Teinohasis rajah recently described by me. There can be no 

 doubt that these specimens should be referred to Amphicnemis 

 and not to Teinohasis. They have been examined by Dr. Ris, 

 who has favoured me with the subjoined remarks on them : — 



" I am at a loss to give good characters for separating Teinohasis 

 and Amphicnemis — this although I believe that the two are quite 

 distinct genera, as proven by the widely different type of S 

 appendages. There is certainly a difference in stature also, 

 Amphicnemis being decidedly the more delicate, with especially a. 

 very narrow and feebly built thorax. But a good character that 

 would do for both sexes and for all the species is still to be sought 

 for, my material is so very insufficient for such an investigation. 

 I believe the great similarity in colour of the two forms in 

 question [Amphicnemis sp. § and T. rajah) is merely a case of 

 convergence.' 



