1868.] 
189 
sible, therefore, that in describing this species he had specimens of the 
subimago before him with the setae, as often happens, badly shrivelled 
up, and described the % setae as “ hardly twice the length of the body” 
(20—24 mill.) from recollection of the S imago, which he might have 
seen but not had before him at the moment, and which has setae of 
that exact length. The setae of the S 9 subimago, when perfect and 
not shrivelled up in drying, are, as I have stated, as long as the whole 
body, (10—14 mill.) and not merely “ as long as the abdomen,” as 
Dr. Hagen states from the dried specimen. It is remarkable that in 
Say’s description of Pofamanthus ctqmhcs, (another species described 
by him in subimago,) the setae of the % (called by him by mistake the 
9 ,) are not only given as less than one-half their natural length, but 
that they are given as less than one-half of what they are said to be 
in the body of the description itself, viz : “ longer than the body,” and 
less than one-half as long as those of the 9 (= S apud Say) ; whereas 
in Ephemerina the exterior % setae are never shorter than those of 9 . 
It is possible, however, that the word “ four-twentieths,” in Say, may 
here be a clerical or typographical error for “ nine-twentieths,” which 
would make his description harmonize both with nature and with itself. 
Yet the doubtful word is printed at full length and not in tigures.—In 
regard to the second objection of Dr. Hagen, four specimens of the 
subimago, which I have still on hand, all exhibit a very narrow ter¬ 
minal brown annulus, on the extreme tip of the femur, besides the 
broad postmediau bandj in the imago, as stated by Dr. Hagen, this 
annulus is very distinct, though I carelessly overlooked it in my de¬ 
scription. Instead of saying “ base of tibiae brown,” I ought to have 
said knees brown.”—In regard to the third objection, viz : the wings 
not being “ snowy white,” as stated by Say in his description, it is ob¬ 
servable that in the diagnosis prefixed to the description, the wings are 
said to be “ whitish,” and this is the color attributed to the wings of 
Palingenia hilineata by Say, (“ hyaline, whitish,”)—an insect which 
in the subimago has wings colored exactly like those of B. femorata 
Walsh, subimago, but which in the imago has the wings rather ‘‘sub¬ 
hyaline” than “ whitish.” Similarly in Bsetis alternata the wings are 
said by Say to be “ whitish,” or “ hyaline with a whitish reflection,” 
whereas in the imago they are perfectly hyaline and in the subimago 
of the usual gray, subfumose, or “ whitish” tint, as Say would call it. 
In all these cases Say appears to me to have confounded imago and 
