Sept., 1904.] Dyar : Notes on Mosquito Larv.e. 173 



I would note, as corrective of Smith's published figure, that the 

 anal segment is not correctly drawn. It is represented as ringed by 

 the plate, which is not the case. 



Occurrence of Culex discolor Coq. — The larvae occurred on 

 May 18 at Grassymead, Va., near Mount Vernon, in a temporary road- 

 side puddle, in company with C.jamaicensis, C. restuans a-wd Psorophora 

 ciliata. The puddle was dry a week later. The larva has a peculiar 

 habit of lying on the bottom on its back with the four, stiff anal gills 

 erect and divergent and the mouth brushes fanning continuously. 



Occurrence of Janthinosoma musicum Say. — The larva; oc- 

 curred on May 21 at Grassymead, Va., in a temporary roadside puddle, 

 in company with Culex sylvestris. The single larva collected was 

 completely covered with the little stalked Protozoon, Vorticella. It 

 pupated, leaving the Vorticella attached to the cast skin. The larva 

 is recognizable by its long antennae. It has a general resemblance to 

 Culex jamaicensis. 



Occurrence of Culex salinarius Coq. — The larvae were found 

 to be abundant in all stages in a large grassy swamp, near Chesapeake 

 Beach, Md., on June 8. The swamp is within a few rods of the bay, 

 but separated therefrom by a wide strip of sand covered with trees, 

 and is not perceptibly salt. It is overgrown in places with Lenina 

 and contains other fresh water organisms. Smith states that the larva 

 inhabit salt marshes only, but I think this statement liable to correc- 

 tion. Mr. F. Knab took several larvje, indistinguishable from sali- 

 narius, from a rain water barrel at Springfield, Mass., and I have found 

 them in a similar situation at Washington, D. C. 



Larva of Culex vittatus Theob. — The adults referred to by me 

 as Culex cantans (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., VI, 38, 1904) and the larvc-e 

 described under the same name (Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc, XII, 36, 1904) 

 should be referred to vittatus. Mr. Coquillett finds that, while very 

 close to cantans, they agree with Theobald's description, published 

 since he made the first identification, and with specimens from Theo- 

 bald's type locality. Unfortunately the figure and description of the 

 larva given by Theobald (Can. Ent., XXXV, 313, 1903) are very unlike 

 mine, especially in the proportions of the air tube, which will neces- 

 sitate renewed breeding experiments to clear up the contradiction. It 

 seems possible that the larva described by Theobald is not correctly 

 associated. The figure would pass for Theobaldia incidens, which 

 species is likewise recorded in the article, but without larval notes. 



