244 
I am accepting Smith’s (1917) place- 
ment of Kollaria insignis Pictet (1841), 
Pteronarcys regalis Newman (1838), P. 
rectus Provancher (1876), P. flavicornis 
Provancher (1876) and P. frigida Ger- 
staecker (1873) as synonyms of dorsata. 
Klapalek (1907) has shown that insignis 
is the same as regalis, and regalis is a syn- 
onym of dorsata, as a result of Smith’s 
interpretation of Say’s species. Ricker 
(1938) further confirms synonymy of in- 
signis with dorsata based upon study of 
the type of the former. 
In 1939, I studied the specimens in the 
Provancher collection now in the Provin- 
cial Museum, Quebec, Canada, in hopes 
of definitely locating types of rectus and 
flavicornis. In this collection I found one 
female and one male Pteronarcys associat- 
ed with the label of “P. regalis,” and both 
are specimens of dorsata as I now recog- 
nize this species. Another female Pteron- 
arcys standing associated with the name 
“rectus’ may be a type, and it also is 
dorsata. All specimens of Pteronarcys 
now in the Provancher collection tend to 
confirm the correctness of placing these 
names rectus and flavicornis in the synony- 
my of dorsata as done by Smith (1917). 
It should be mentioned here that 
Hagen’s 1861 record for proteus and his 
1873 record for nobilis should be placed in 
the bibliography of dorsata since Hagen 
in 1873 states that the specimens recorded 
by him in 1861 as proteus are regalis 
(= dorsata). Smith (1917) thus erred 
in placing Hagen’s (1861) reference to 
proteus under proteus when it should go 
under dorsata. Also, Klapalek’s (1907) 
reference to nobilis should be placed in the 
synonymy of dorsata and not under pic- 
tetii (— nobilis) as done by Smith. 
As mentioned in an earlier paragraph, I 
am placing regalis in the synonymy of 
dorsata because of reared females from the 
same locality which show all stages be- 
tween having a straight posterior margin 
of the eighth abdominal sternite and hay- 
ing two conspicuous nipple-like processes. 
Hagen’s (1873) report seems to be quite 
definite in regard to regalis having these 
nipple-like processes. 
Pteronarcys pictetii Hagen 
Pteronarcys pictetii Hagen (1873, p. 286). 
Original description, ¢, 9. 
ItLtnoris NatuRAL History SURVEY BULLETIN 
Vol. 22, Art 
Pteronarcys regalis Hagen (1861, p. 15). 
New synonymy for @. 
Pteronarcys nobilis Smith (1917, p. 448). 
New synonymy. 
Pteronarcys nobilis Needham & Claassen 
(1925, p. 36). New synonymy. 
Pteronarcys nobilis Frison (1935a, p. 336). 
New synonymy. 
Under the discussion of dorsata (Say) 
I have shown that nobilis Hagen is the 
species called dorsata by Smith (1917), 
and that regalis Newman (1838a) is a 
variant of dorsata. 
The types of pictetii are now in the 
Museum of Comparative Zoology, associ- 
ated with the type number “242.” ‘The 
female has labels associated with it as fol- 
lows: ‘‘Philadelphia — Winthem — Ha- 
gen.” ‘The male has associated with it the 
following data: ‘“Meadville—Pa.—B. P. 
Mann.” In view of the fact that the male 
type is the species dorsata, I hereby desig- 
nate the female type as the lectotype to 
govern the use of the name picte/i. 
A study of these types reveals that 
pictetii is the species called nobilis by 
Smith and was so synonymized by her. 
However, since Smith’s concept of nobilis 
was in error, the name of pictetii, by selec- 
tion of typic female as lectotype, is the 
first name available to be used for the 
species called nobilis by Smith (1917), 
Needham & Claassen (1925) and Frison 
(1934 and 1935a). 
Hagen’s (1873) paper clearly corrected 
his earlier mistakes of 1861 regarding 
Pteronarcys, but he had no means of 
knowing that his nobilis and regalis would 
be found to intergrade and that dorsata 
would later be considered a species of 
Pteronarcys having name priority over 
both nobilis and regalis. 
I have been unable thus far to find 
definite workable characters for separating 
the nymphs of dorsata and pictetii. At one 
time I thought that more distinctive strip- 
ing of the nymphal abdomens indicated 
dorsata, but rearings have not confirmed 
this view, and the character of the water 
seems to have a marked influence upon the 
appearance of the nymphs. Mature female 
nymphs of pictetii can often be identified 
because of a strong indication of the in- 
cised posterior margin in the middle of the 
eighth abdominal sternite. 3 
Ricker (1938), in his remarks regard- 
ing Pteronarcys pictetii, implies that the 
type of pictetii is a specimen called proteus 
