02 [March. 



hand, De Geer's description applies very well indeed to our Cam- 

 ptocladius hyssimis, and to, no other Chironomid, while several species 

 of Camftocladius are known to be dung or soil feeders in the larval 

 state.* If we suppose that De G-eer's measurement of length included 

 the antennae, the only apparent discrepancy pi'actically disappears. 



The name Canqjtocladius stercorarius (De Geer, 1776), must 

 therefore replace that of C. byssinus (Schranlc, 1 803). I cannot say at 

 present what name should be used for the species which is widely 

 known as Orthocladius stercorarius, but it would appear that several 

 closely allied species have been confused under this designation ; two 

 such are 0. novatus (Walker) and 0. ohlidens (Walker), but older 

 names probably exist for both of these. 



The remarks made above concerning the status of the genus 

 Exechia apply also to Orthocladius, since 0. stercorarius Auct. (nee 

 Deg.) was selected by Coquillett in 1910 as the generic type. 



3. — CuLEX COMMUNIS De Geer (Mem., Tome VI, p. 316). 



De Geer gives quite respectable figures of the larvae, pupae, and 

 adult of a mosquito which he found near Leussta (? in Sweden). He 

 thought his species was the same as Linnaeus' G. pipiens, the life- 

 history of which had been worked out by Reaumur, but he was not 

 quite certain as he had noticed some differences in the larvae, and 

 probably on this account he proposed the name communis as an alter- 

 native to pipiens. All subsequent writers down to Theobald have 

 sunk communis as synonymous with pipiens. But it is perfectly 

 evident from De Geer's figures, as well as fi-om the fact that he found 

 full-grown larvae in May, that he was not dealing with C. pipiens at 

 all, but with a species of Ochlerotattis,f almost certainly our common 

 British 0. nemorosus Mg. 



There is one point of difference, according to.De Geer's figures, 

 between his species and our 0. nemorosus Mg. He represents the 

 penultimate joint of the male palpi as being considerably longer than 

 the terminal, whereas in nemorosus the two are almost equal in length. 

 Although I believe this apparent difference is probably due to an 

 error on De Geer's part, it will perhaps save us from the necessity of 

 sinking the name nemorosus, as it is of course possible that there may 

 be in Sweden a species which answers exactly to De Geer's figures. 



* On account of its larval habits, Malloch (Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., X, art. VI, 

 May, 1915) has already suggested that C. Iiyssinus is a CamptoclacUus and not au Orthocladius. 



t Attention has been called to tlie true generic position of C. comiimnis by Howard, Dyar and 

 Knai) (Mosq. of N. and O. Amer. and W. Indies, Vol. 3, p. 36S, Oct., 1915). 



