1SS18.1 227 



The matter would rest here, but in 1890 Mr. "W. F. Kirby, in 

 his " Catalogue of Odonata,^^ p. 87, admits the right of Strom's name 

 over that of Zetterstedt, but considers that a still older name exists 

 in sqxiamata, Miiller (" Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina," p. 62, 

 1764). The diagnosis of the latter is briefly as follows: — " Alis 

 albidis puncto marginali lutescente : lineis thoracis quatuor caeruleis." 

 Later on, in 1766, in the Nov. Act. Acad. Leopold. Carol, vol. iii, a 

 more detailed description appeared to this effect : — " Facies fusca, 

 albo-variegata. Oculi fusci. Thorax fuscus, lineis utrinque 2 albo- 

 cseruleis. Pedes nigro-fuscis, squamula ad basin posteriorum alba. 

 Abdomen cylindricum, fusco albo-uigroque mire mixtum, subtus 

 fuscum. Medio Septembris." It seems probable that the description 

 was taken from an old and faded example. The "squamula" I presume 

 represented the " oreilette " of the ^. This description might apply 

 equally well to juncea and mixta, ^^ndi possibly others. I incline to the 

 opinion that mixta was intended thereby. My objections to any con- 

 nection with ccerulea are chiefly circumstantial. (1) I am not aware 

 that ccerulea has ever been recorded from Denmark by any modern 

 writer, and it is an insect one would scarcely expect to find in so flat 

 a country ; in Scotland it frequents sub-alpine moors and mountain 

 sides, and it is only in the north of Scandinavia that it seems to occur 

 near the sea level. (2) The middle of September seems to me at 

 variance with the usual time of appearance of ccjerulea. I urge, there- 

 fore, that whereas Strom's name seems free from objection, the right 

 of Miiller's is decidedly " not proven," to say the least. Hagen, in his 

 '' Synonymia Libellularum Europsearum," compiled when a very young 

 man, suggested (p. 53) that squamata might be identical with mixta, 

 which latter does not occur in Scandinavia. Hagen in those days seems 

 to have confused ccerulea and mixta, for he stated that he possessed 

 the latter from Upsal. 



One or two collateral matters arise out of the foregoing remarks. 

 De Selys, in 1850 (" lievue des Odonates," p. 122), gives reasons why 

 horealis {ccerulea') cannot be the same as the coluherculus of Harris 

 ("Exposition," p. 91, tab. xxvii, fig. 1, 1782), one of which, however, 

 viz., the furcation of the sub-nodal sector in the figure, is of no great 

 importance, viewed in the light of the variation seen in coerulea. I 

 might add we would not expect to find ccerulea on an English common, 

 by a hedge-side, as stated by Harris for coluherculus. Kirby, without 

 comment {I. c), gives coluherculus as identical with mixta, and having 

 priority. The objection that De Selys used in 1850, viz., the long 

 pterostigma and the very short appendages as seen in the figure, are 



