OF WASHINGTON, VOLUMIi XI, 1909. 31 



As above stated, Cule.v pipiens has generally been recognized 

 as the type of the genus, and that no doubt correctly, as this 

 would seem to be the most common, and in a sense, officinal 

 species included, and would thus be intended as the type on 

 Linnaeus' own ideas. Moreover, it is the first species. Of the 

 others, bifnrcatus has been recognized as a mosquito, an Europ- 

 ean species of Anopheles: but very little is said about it, and it 

 was obviously subordinated in Linnaeus' conception of the 

 group. The other species are not mosquitoes at all : pulicaris 

 is a Ceratopogon, re f> tans and eqninns are species of Sitinilinin, 

 and stercorens is apparently some Cyclorhaphid fly. They do 

 not agree with Linnaeus' definition "Os aculeis setaceis intra 

 vaginam flexilem,'' and he could not have had any of them in 

 mind as typical of the genus. The only species so agreeing 

 are the first two, of which the first is much the commoner and 

 better known. We therefore see no reason for attempting to 

 reverse the generally accepted procedure, and would confirm 

 Cule.v pipiens Linnaeus as the type of the genus and family. 



The next point to be determined is the identity of Cule.v 

 pipiens. Linnaeus obviously intended the term to cover all 

 mosquitoes known to him, directly or indirectly, except the 

 Anopheles, with long palpi in the female, which he separates 

 under the name Cnlc.v bifnrcatus. Linnaeus had experienced 

 mosquitoes in Lapland, and they evidently made a lasting im- 

 pression upon his mind, as he speaks of them as "most abund- 

 ant" and as a terrible plague in that country. He also includes 

 the common domestic forms, as he speaks of their furnishing 

 food to chickens, and he also refers to their occurrence in 

 America and "The Indies," but not by personal observation. 

 The first separation of species from this aggregate was by 

 Linnaeus himself, in the following manner : Previous to the 

 date of the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae, Linnaeus had 

 published Cule.v vulgaris (Act. "Ups., 31, 1736) and Cule.v 

 alpinus (Flor. Lapp., 364, 1737) ; but as these antedate the 

 beginning of zoological nomenclature, they are excluded from 

 consideration. Moreover, Linnaeus himself refers these species 

 as synonyms of pipiens in the second edition of the Fauna 

 Suecica, 1761. However, the descriptions reappear in the 

 second edition of the Flora Lapponica, 1702, so the names may 

 be considered to become valid on that date. Under ordinary 

 conditions, the fact that the names first appeared as synonyms 

 would render their subsequent use inadmissible ; but in Lin- 

 naeus' case we hold that an exception should be made, and the 

 resurrection of the names allowed. Linnaeus first proposed 

 the names to represent valid species, and subsequently referred 



