Hagen.] 268 [January 22, 
cincta, a fragment without the head, but as Say only describes the 
male, it cannot be his type. ‘There is in the collection a male with a 
red label and printed number 219, perhaps a later addition. 
20. Diplax minuscula Rbr. Hag. Syn., 182, 18. 
No. 142. $¢@, East Florida, Mr. Doubleday. . 
21. Perithemis tenera Say. Hag. Syn., 185, 1. 
No. 49. Lib. tenera Say ss. 42 (Say’s determ.). Milton, July 
TO. el 
As the fragment of the specimen is labelled u, and as Mr. Say as- 
cribes his species to Massachusetts, it may be the type. It is the fe- 
male of the well known race (?) of P. domitia. The male is L. ten- 
uicincta Say. my ia 
There are in the Harris collection some nymphe belonging to Li- 
bellula, and some nympha skins of Diplax. They were placed with- 
out any indication near Pl. trimaculata, to which species the nymphz 
does not belong, as I know that of this species, and near Lib. exusta, 
the nympha of which is still unknown. Near the Libellula nymphe, 
on the bottom of the box, was a pencil mark “N. Y.”; perhaps it is 
the locality. 
CORDULINA. 
22. Macromia transversa Say. Hag. Syn., 135, 1. 
No. 72. 8°, Lib. transversa Say mss. (Say’s determ.). Didy- 
mops Servilleti Rbr. Randal, Stow, Mass. 
As Say described this species after a male specimen sent by Dr. 
Harris, the specimens in the collection have a typical value. 
The larva was placed in another box; I supposed long ago that it 
belonged to this species, and in the Cambridge Museum is the imago 
and the nympha skin placed in the same bottle, making the identity 
probable. ‘The larva is described by Dr. A. 8. Packard, 1st Ann. 
Rep. Insects Mass., 1871. Stow, Mass., is the most northern limit 
for the species known. 
23. Epitheca forcipata Scudder, Proc. B. S. N. H.,x., p. 216. 
No. 148. 6, Lub. tenebrosa Say (Harris’ determ.). Maine, Mr. 
Randal, 1836. 
The description of Mr. Say shows clearly that the species cannot 
be his L. tenebrosa, as presumed by Dr. Harris. Baron De Selys 
Longchamps having Mr. Scudder’s type decided it to be identical 
with C. chalybea Hag. Syn., 138, 7 (without description) from Nova 
