312 ■ F. W. EDWARDS. 



Culex concinnus, Stephens, Illustr. Brit. Ent. Suppl. p. 19 (1846). 



Culex nigripes var. sylvae. Theobald, Mon. Cul. ii, p. 96 (1901). 



Culicada sylvae, Theobald, Mon. Cul. iii, p. 194 (1903). 



{l)Aedes aldrichi, Dyar & Knab, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xxxv, p. 57 (1908). 



Culicada nigrina, Eckstem, Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. Orig. Ixxxii, p. 67 (1918). 



Culex nemorosus var. dorsoviUatus, Villeneuve, Bull. Soc. Ent. France, p. 57 



(1919). 

 Ochlerotatus dorsoviUatus, Seguy, Bull. Mus. Paris xxvi, p. 408 (1920). 

 (?) Ochlerotatus lesnei, Seguy, Bull. Mus. Paris xxvi, p. 328 (1920). 

 Culicada netnorosa salina, Brolemann [nee Ficalbi), Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 



Ixxxviii, p. 81 (1919). 



This species is fairly easily recognisable by the general blackish colour, the 

 white scales on the sides of the mesonotum, contrasting strongly with the dark 

 brown stripe which occupies the middle third, and the whitish stripe on the outer 

 side of the hind tibia of the female (often, though not always, present also in the 

 male). The hypopygium (figured by Seguy and Brolemann) is characterised by 

 the extremely short appendage to the claspette, which is very little longer than 

 broad, and not much broader than the width of the stem, and by the large basal 

 lobes, which are to a great extent separated from the side-pieces. 



The species varies a good deal in size, though it is on the average smaller than 

 0. punctor, to which it is most nearly allied. It also varies in regard to the abdominal 

 bands of the female, which are in some specimens reduced to lateral spots (as in 

 the type of C. sticticus, and as described by Eckstein for C. nigrina), while in others 

 they are complete and scarcely even contracted in the middle (as in the types of 

 C. concinnus and C. sylvae). I do not believe that these differences represent anything 

 more than individual variation. Eckstein describes and gives rough figures of a 

 difference between the hypopygia of his C. nigrina and what he regards as C. lateralis, 

 stating that the appendage of the claspette is shorter and less broad in the latter 

 than in the former. This may be true, and if so must indicate that we are dealing 

 with two distinct species, but I have seen no specimens corresponding to Eckstein's 

 figure of C. lateralis, and am inclined to think he has merely shown the same structure 

 from two different points of view. 



Since there may be two allied species here, and since there has been difference 

 of opinion as to the interpretation of Meigen's C. lateralis, Theobald using the name 

 for A. genictdatus, it does not seem advisable to adopt this earlier name for the 

 species ; the type of C. lateralis being no longer in existence, it seems best to follow 

 Theobald in adopting Ficalbi's suggestion that it is the same as C. albopunctatus, 

 Rond. {A. geniculatus) . Of C. sticticus there is a female in good condition in Meigen's 

 collection at Paris, and Seguy reports that the hind tibiae have a distinct pale stripe 

 on the outer side. The name sticticus may therefore be used without further question. 



I have examined the types of C. concinnus and C. sylvae and cotypes of 

 C. dorsovittatus, and have no doubt as to their identity. Seguy's figure of the 

 hypopygium of 0. lesnei represents a structure apparently identical with that of 

 A. sticticus, his other figure of 0. iforsovz7te;!«s being rather inaccurate, besides showing 

 the same structure in a different position. Specimens of A. sticticus were collected 

 by M. Lesne in the same locality and at the same time as the type of 0. lesnei, and I 

 cannot help thinking that Seguy has confused two different species in his description : 

 the tarsi of 0. lesnei are said to have pale rings. 



The North American species A. hirsuteron (Theo.), A. aestivalis, Dyar, and 

 A. aldrichi, D. & K., are all very similar to^. sticticus in coloration, as well as in the 

 male hypopygium, all having the same peculiar structure of the basal lobes. It is 

 not at all unlikely that A. sticticus occurs in North America under one or other of 

 these names. I can see no difference between European A . sticticus and American 

 A. aldrichi, and consider that they are most probably identical, though distinctions 



