page 165 note * Nomenclatural.—In the case of Aeshna vs. Gomphus I have examined the evidence and find it is as follows: Linne included all dragonflies known to him in one genus, Libellula. Fabricius (1775. Syst. Ent., pp. 420–426) divided the genus into three, Libellula, L. Aeshana, Fabr., and Agrion, Fabr., placing under Aeshna, among other species, L. grandis, L., and L. forcipata, L. It is worthy of note that he left L. vulgatissina, L., in Libellula. Illeger (1802. Magazin für Insekten kunde, p. 126) corrected the spelling to Aeschna, merely to accord with its etymology. Latreille was the first to designate types. He specifies (1802. Hist. Nat. Gust., Ms. III, 286) L. depressa, L, as the type of Libellula; L. vulgatissima, L., as the type of Aeshna, and L. virgo as the type of Agrion. With regard to the second, which alone concerns us here, L. vulgattisima, L., was described and figured by Latreille under the name “Aeshnma forcipata, Fabr.,” as was shown later by both Hagen and De Selys. Kirby's Catalogue of Neuroptera Odonata (1890) gives the correct synonymy and thus contains in itself the evidence which condemns the substitution it proposes. For if the type named by Latreille for Aeshna was vulgatissima, L., this species having been excluded by Fabricius when he founded the genus, cannot be its type. Leach (1818. Edinburgh Encycl. VIII. part 2, p. 726 of Amer. reprint) founded the genus gomphus, with L. vulgattisima L., for its type and placed under Aeshna. Fabr., the sole species L. grandis, L. However, Cuvier had previously (1798) characterized Aeshna (as pointed out by De Selys, C. R. Ent. Soc. Belg., 1890, p. CLXI.) and described under it the sole species grandis, L. This usage has since been universally followed until 1890, and one is glad to find there is now no reason for change.
I follow De Selys in using the name Ophiogomphus, Sel., which seems to have been quite properly given.
