Dec, 1907.1 Book Notice. 241 



statement "the type of the genus Grabhamia I xi\2i.AQ. jamaicensis.'' 

 As a matter of fact he made no type ; jamaicensis was first specified 

 as type by Dr. Felt. Under the first species rule the type is dorsalis, 

 as stated by Dr. Dyar. This Mr. Theobald has failed to comprehend. 



Mr. Theobald objects to Dr. Dyar's statement that Janthinosoma 

 miisica c.nd Grabhamia Jamatcefisis ?,ho\i\(\ fall together, adding "more 

 totally diverse forms could not be seen." Now they are diverse only 

 in his own opinion. These species agree in egg and larval structure 

 and in the male genitalia. In our classification they both fall in the 

 genus Aedes. In short, they agree in all essential characters, and 

 only differ in the unessential ones on which Mr. Theobald has chosen 

 to found his classification. A better example of its unsoundness 

 could hardly be adduced. He refers to the placing of his scholasticus 

 in the gtnxi?, Jartthinosofna by us on larval characters as an example of 

 the faulty working of our system ; but fails to note, as is fairly obvi- 

 ous from the context, that this was due to an erroneous determination 

 made for us by Mr. Coquillett. We have since renamed the form. 



Mr. Coquillett's classification is commended, so far as the Theo- 

 baldian characters are used, but the most valuable part of it, the treat- 

 ment of the genus Ochterotatus, is condemned, while Theobald him- 

 self makes no use of this old name. 



Dr. Lutz's classification has been adopted, which is an improve- 

 ment ; it is at least orderly. Ten subfamilies are recognized, based 

 as formerly on secondary sexual characters, venation and bending of 

 the proboscis. The only really valuable character, the presence or 

 absence of setae on the metanotum, is obscured and used in a secon- 

 dary manner. The curious relationships between the predacious spe- 

 cies and their hosts are not brought out, for while Lutzia stands near 

 Ctilex, and Psorophora near Janthinosoma, Megarhimts and its near 

 relative Mansonia are widely separated. In spite of the multiplicity 

 of genera, forms are associated in one genus which have no near afiini- 

 ties. One hundred and nine genera are recognized. It is true that 

 genera do not exist in nature and are only artificial divisions ; but 

 they are supposed to be for the convenience of the student, not for 

 his confusion and undoing. There ought to be some sort of uni- 

 formity with other groups of Diptera and other insects in general as 

 to the scope of the division called the genus. Mr. Theobald appears 

 to be unprepared for his work on general principles ; having no 

 knowledge of any group but mosquitoes he unduly magnifies their 



