218 THE CANADUN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



CULEX CONSOBRINUS AGAIN. 



BY D. W. COQUILLETT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 



In ihe July number of the C.\n.\dian ENroMoi.ooiST, Prof. J. M. 

 Aldrich attempted to rescue Dr. Williston's Cidex iiiornatus from the 

 synonymy by referring the true Culex eonsobrifius, Desvoidy, as a syn- 

 onym of Culex pipiens, Linne, and denying that any of the other species 

 which the writer originally placed in the synonymy of cofisobririus is 

 identical with inornatns. 



Desvoidy did not give a separate description of his consobrinus, but 

 compared it with what he identified as pipiens, observing that it differed 

 in having the palpi and tarsi " brunicosis, non flavis." Desvoidy was 

 noted for his erroneous identifications of previously described species, and 

 that he mistook some larger species for the true pipiens, seems to admit 

 of no doubt, since the measurement he gives, '• long. 3 lineas," is too long 

 for the latter, all the specimens of which in the National Museum fall short 

 of 2.5 lines. His measurements are usually accurate, as may be gleaned 

 from those he gave of such strongly-marked, easily-recognized forms as 

 Cuiex t?iosqiiiio, Anopheles inaadipennis, A. argyriiarsis, Psorophora 

 ciliata, etc., all of which are within the range of the specimens of the given 

 species. He gave the same measurement for consobrinus as for pipiens, 

 and in deciding what species the former refers to it is necessary to find a 

 species which is larger than the true pipiens, has the ground colour he 

 gave for pipiens, " cinereo-subflavescens. Thorax, dorso-levitor fulves- 

 cente," and that inhabits Pennsylvania, the locality given for consobrinus. 

 Up to the present time we knovv of only one species that fills all of these 

 requirements, and this is the form which I have identified as consobrinus. 



Even if I erred in this identification, there are still at least two other 

 names that stand in the way of Dr. Williston's Culex inornatus, namely, 

 C. impatiens, Walker, the type of which Mr. Theobald states agrees in 

 nearly all respects with what I have identified as consobrinus, except in 

 the abdominal banding, and this was not of sufficient importance to cause 

 him to regard it as representing a distinct species ; and C. pinguis. 

 Walker, which Mr. Theobald admits may be synonymous with conso- 

 brinus. 



As I hope to review this subject more at length in a forthcoming 

 monograph, it need not be enlarged upon here ; sufficient facts have been 

 given above to fully disprove Mr. Aldrich's contention in relation to the 

 true Culex consobrinus of Desvoidy. 



