136 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



an inch and eight lines long and expand two inches and a half. C. arctica 

 has a body slightly longer than the other two. 



In the generally distributed Cor duleg aster annulatus the labium is cleft at 

 the top. The head is yellow at the back and so also is the upper lip, the 

 thorax is bla^k with eight yellow stripes, the abdomen is black with a yellow 

 band at the middle of each segment. It has a body two inches and eight 

 lines long, and an expanse of wing of three inches and a half. The male 

 has a decidedly club-shaped abdomen. 



We have seven British species of the genus JEzclina. All have the eyes 

 quite contiguous, and the anal angle of the hind- wings of the male acute 

 (rounded in the female.) JE. jjretensis, JE. juncea, JE. cyanea, and 2E. 

 grandis are all generally distributed, The last three are among our largest 

 dragonflies, expanding very nearly four inches. They all have clear wings, 

 but the last named has them tinted a transparent red brown. In this speci- 

 men we have just captured, you see the thorax is reddish browu with two 

 yellow bands at the sides, and you will notice there are four blue spots at 

 the base of the wings, and two obHqne yellow stripes and two blue spots 

 immediately following them. You also see the remaining segments are like- 

 wise marked at intervals with blue, this shews our specimen is a male, as 

 these markings are absent in the female. But time will not permit us to stay 

 any longer hunting dragonflies, so we must defer the examination of the 

 remaining species until our next ramble. 

 Cambridge. 



ENTOMOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



By JOHN E. ROBSON. 



I can quite understand the position taken up by Mr. Tutt on this subject, 

 but venture to think his views will alter before long. On one important 

 point we agree — the desirability of uniformity — but we seek this in different, 

 may I say opposite, directions. I advocate the acceptance of the suggestions 

 or decisions of the British Association, and would take the 12th edition of 

 the " Systema Naturae " as a starting point. Mr. Tutt proposes that we take 

 instead the 2nd edition of the Catalogue of Drs. Staudinger and Wocke. 

 But he only suggests this with the understanding that we are to " reject the 

 errors when it is proved to the satisfaction of every one that they are errors." 

 I may be permitted to point out that if we reject the errors (I say nothing 

 about the difficulty of satisfying every one), we are not making it our starting 

 point at all, but are going behind it and correcting it by something that has 

 preceded it. Does not this involve the whole controversy ? If we are to 



