122 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. xv. 



the chitinous piece in question, which Miss Mitchell insists is such an 

 important feature, is largely illusory. The figure of the under side of 

 the head which I gave in Psyche was carefully drawn from a head in 

 horizontal position and I believe is a correct representation of the 

 head when thus viewed. When the larva is examined from above the 

 head is deflected and the lobes projecting at the sides are seen in per- 

 spective and present the angular appearance noted by Miss Mitchell. 

 It will be unnecessary to discuss at this time the mandibular structures 

 of mosquito larvae. I simply assert that the structures pointed out by 

 Miss Mitchell are not of primary importance. If one adopted Miss 

 Mitchell's method of classification, Lesticocampa, in which the larva 

 has enormous maxillae projecting far beyond the antennae, shaped like 

 mandibles and armed with several long sharp teeth, would on such a 

 remarkable structure have to be removed from the Diptera altogether ! 

 Her simile in this connection of the tails of monkeys throws an inter- 

 esting sidelight on her ideas of classification which would certainly 

 astonish vertebrate zoologists. Would she propose to remove the 

 South American short-tailed Brachyurus from the Platyrrhine group 

 and mercilessly throw it among the old world apes ? 



It will be as well, on this occasion, to dispose of Miss Mitchell's 

 subfamily Psorophorinae. Littzia bigoti has a predaceous larva, in all 

 the details of the mouth parts like that of Fsorophora. But by no 

 artifice can the adult of this mosquito be associated with Fsorophora. 

 It is only by the very large empodia that this form is generically sep- 

 arable from Ciilex, an adaptive structure to enable this large mosquito 

 to rest upon the water. The larval structure is purely adaptive to 

 habits and doubtless acquired quite independently. 



But it is when we turn to the adult characters that the crudity of 

 Miss Mitchell's ideas becomes most obvious. It is certainly a great 

 wrong to Osten Sacken to misquote him in the manner she has. The 

 striking differences in the antennae of the Nemocera anomala from 

 those of the true Nemocera lie in the brevity of the segments and the 

 absence of the whorls of sensory hairs. Anyone who has examined 

 the antenna; of a Shnulium or a Bibionid will appreciate the difference. 

 The antennae of Deinocerites differ from those of most other Culicids 

 merely in the greater relative length of some of the segments ; as a 

 result the whorls of hairs are less conspicuous, but present they are. 

 How any member of so homogeneous and specialized a group as the 

 mosquitoes can be considered "primitive," least of all one with such 



