18737] 291 (Hagen. © 
ment without abdomen, locality. unknown. If, as Mr. Eaton stated, 
E. decora, similans and natata are the same species, and I confess 
to have doubts still about EZ. decora, he has apparently not seen the 
species described by Walsh and myself as E. decora. I may add, 
that I possess a third North American species from New York very 
similar to #. Danica Miiller. 
8. Hexagenia limbata Guér. Hag. Syn., 14, 5. 
No. 87. Ephemera (Baetis ?) -costalis Harr., Randall, Maine, 1836. 
Male imago and the nympha skin. Harris refers here his No. 
62, probably erroneously for No. 63, because No. 62 is his Perla 
fulvovittata. Of his No. 63, Ephemera (Baetis) irregularis Say Mss., 
(Say’s determ.), from Dublin, N. H., Mr. Leonard, almost nothing is 
left on the pin, except a part of the mesothorax, similar.to H. limbata. 
No. 32. u. Ephemera (Baetis) fuscicostata Say Mss. (Say’s determ.), 
Milton, 1821. Part of the thorax and the basal border of the ante- 
rior wing, agreeing with H. limbata. 
No. 37. u. Ephem. (Baetis) confusa Say, Mss. (Say’s determ.), Mil- 
ton. Marked lost by Harris; a fragment only on the pin; perhaps 
the same species. _ 
4, Hexagenia spec. 
No. 33. Ephemera (Baetis) Eurinus Say Mss. (Say’s determ.) 
Milton, June 15, 1821, u, female. 
Perhaps this is a female of Heaxagenia bilineata Hag. Syn., 41, 4, but 
I have never seen a similar one; the wings are more yellowish, the 
femora of the forelegs have a black spot outside at the tip. Long. 
20 mm. ; exp. of the wings 52 mm. 
5. Baetis spec. 
No. 34. Ephemera (Baetis) ammenicauda Say Mss. (Say’s determ.). 
Milton, June, 1871 ; a female, abdomen and hind legs wanting. 
I know no specimen except this fragment ; expanse of the wings 34 
mm.; Baetis femorata Walsh, has a alae coloration of the wing 
but is surely different by the reticulation, as in B. ammenicauda the 
costal space of the forewings has a single row of quadrangular cells. 
The reticulation of the hind wings agrees with Siphlurus Eaton. 
6. Baetis spec. 
No. 83. Alabama, Febr., Hentz. 
The only specimen, a male subimago, was placed as var. ? of B. 
reticulata (E. decora.) The species I cannot determine from the 
imperfect specimen. | 
