94 
The Ohio Naturalist. 
[Vol. XIII, No. 5, 
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE ODONATA OF 
OHIO. 
Jas. S. Hine. 
The “Odonata of Ohio” by Dr. David S. Kellieott was pub¬ 
lished in March, 1899. At that time 98 species had been taken in 
the state and all were represented in Professor Kellieott’s collec¬ 
tion. Anax longipes Hagen was mentioned as a possible member 
of Ohio’s fauna, but no specimens had been procured and we 
have no further information in regard to it at the present time. 
A few misstatements have been noted in Dr. Kellieott’s articles 
concerning dragonflies, largely unavoidable at that time because 
of the small amount of work that had been done on some of the 
genera. Recent investigations have revealed the fact that some 
additional species were at hand in 1899 but were associated with 
nearly related ones on account of not being described. Finally a 
number of species not previously reported for Ohio have been 
collected in various sections of the state and by various collectors, 
most usually while engaged in preparing general faunal collections. 
On account of the few misstatements and the several addi¬ 
tions that have been made to the number of species taken 
within the limits of the state, it seems desirable at this time to 
print some statements for the purpose of bringing the list of Ohio 
dargonflies up to date. In Volume I of the Ohio Naturalist, 
page 13, are given a few additions and corrections, but since some 
of these should be mentioned again, I have thought best at this 
time to give such information as has been collected since the 
appearance of The Odonata of Ohio. 
An attractive species of Enallagma was considered an unde¬ 
scribed species and named Enallagma fischeri by Dr. Kellieott. 
After studying a large amount of material Mr. E. B. WiUiamson 
came to the conclusion that E. fischeri is the same as Agrion 
antennata Say and Dr. Calvert concurred. I believe that Wil¬ 
liamson is correct in his conclusion in this matter, but due deference 
to Dr. Kellieott merits the statement that Say’s description is 
rather brief and does not fully explain distinctive characters. 
After one is well acquainted with the dragonfly fauna of the section 
where Say procured his specimens it is possible to reach the 
proper conclusion by the process of elimination. In other words 
there appears to be no other species in this region that answers so 
well Say’s description as the one in question. 
At the time when Dr. Kellieott did his work on Ohio dragon¬ 
flies some of the species of the genus Gomphus were not well 
defined, consequently a few of his determinations have been 
