Hagen.] 280 [January 22, 
doubts whether it belongs really to the same species, as stated by 
Harris. 
5. Psocus sparsus Hag. Syn.,'8, 1. 
No. 60. Psocus infuscatus — nubilus, lost ?, with the remark of 
Mr. Say,— ‘‘I have not studied this genus.” June 1, 1830. On 
fence, Cambridge, Aug. 1, 1837, and in college yard, on fence, 6 
Sept. 8, 1837. 
There are six specimens, mostly fragments, that labelled u, only 
legs, the females only wings. The specimen marked Aug. 1, 1837, 
has on the label ‘“ described the same day.” 
The types in my collection from Washington and Maine, all fe- 
males, have darker colored wings, but I possess females colored like 
Harris’ specimen, also from Maine and from Gorham, N. H. As 
Harris’ specimens are in bad condition, and my material is not suffi- 
cient, I can only state now that his species is very near Psocus spar- 
sus, and probably identical. The description in Corresp., p. 332) 
does not decide the question. 
6. Psocus lugens Hag. Syn., 9, 2. 
No. 130. Nubilus, infuscatus (later both words erased). 4 and @ 
on fence of my house (Cambridge), swarming Aug. 1, 1837; also in 
Newell’s garden, in college grounds, on fence, Sept. 9, 1837. 
In this collection is a female fragment, and another fragment with 
same number and Psoc. punctipennis on the label. There is no doubt. 
about the identity with my species from Washington. | 
7. EKlipsocus signatus Hag. Syn., 9, 3. 
No. 128. Cambridge, June 21, 1835. 
This species is described in Harris’ Corresp., p. 332, as Ps. graci- 
lis. He adds justly, — ‘‘ it may perhaps hereafter be proper. to sepa- 
rate this from the other species under a new generic name; I have 
only seen two specimens.” Of both these, fragments with wings are 
still in the collection, proving the identity with my specimen from 
New York. 
8. Psocus quadrifasciatus Harr. Corresp., p. 331. 
No. 128. Psocus quadrifasciatus Harr. mss. Cambridge, on fence 
north of Mr. Newell’s garden, in college grounds, Sept. 9, 1837, in 
great numbers. 
A paper having contained ten specimens is present, but with only 
small fragments of wings. ‘This species seems very similar to my 
Psocus madidus, Syn., 12, 12, from New York, described from a 
specimen in bad condition. Perhaps it is the same. 
