1 



336 F- W. EDWARDS. 



4. Culex hortensis, Ficalbi. 



Ctdex hortensis, Ficalbi, Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital. xxi, p. 27 (1889), and xxxi, p. 217 



(1899). 

 Maillotia pilifera, Theobald, Mon. Cul. iv, p. 274 (1907). 

 Culex geniculatus, Theobald {nee Olivier), Mon. Cnl. iii, p. 216 (1903). 



Easily distinguished from the other Palaearctic species with dark tarsi by the 

 apically situated bands on the abdominal tergites and from its ally C. apicalis by 

 the white spot at the tip of the hind tibia, and the bare male palpi. The abdominal 

 bands are variable in width, being reduced occasionally to lateral spots only. 



The larvae are said to prefer weedy ponds, particularly those covered with duck- 

 weed. 



Distribution. — Throughout the Mediterranean region and central Europe, extending 

 as far north as Paris and Berhn. Some new records are : Corsica {Mann) ; Asia 

 Minor (Ereckli, Sabanja, v. Bodemeyer) ; Germany (Berlin, Schildhom, Oldenberg, 

 1 $) ; Transcaspia (Firudza, C. Aknger) ; Syria (Beirut, Landrieu). 



5. Culex apicalis, Adams. 



Culex apicalis, Adams, Kansas Univ. Sci. Bull, ii, p. 26 ( ? June 1903). 

 Culex sergenti, Theobald, Mon. Cul. iii, p. 218 (July 1903). 

 Culex pyrenaicus, Brolemann, Ann. Soc. Ent. France, Ixxxvii, p. 427 (1919). 

 Culex terrifans, Howard, Dyar & Knab, Monogr. iv, p. 293 (1912) {nee Walker). 



In spite of the great differences in the male hypopygium, there can be no doubt 

 that this is closely related to C. hortensis. The most obvious distinctions of 

 C. apicalis are the hairy terminal joints of the male palpi and the dark tip of the hind 

 tibia. The wing-scales seem to be a little narrower, and the pale abdominal bands 

 are also perhaps on the average narrower. It may not always be possible to dis- 

 tinguish the females with certainty ; Eckstein states that they differ from those of 

 C. hortensis in having the bases of the abdominal stemites dark-scaled, but I cannot 

 confiiTn this. 



The larva differs from that of C. hortensis in the bicoloured antennae, in the 

 shape of the siphon, and in the smaller and less numerous siphonal tufts. The two 

 species are said by Seguy to breed under similar conditions, though according to 

 Eckstein C. apicalis is found in clear water. 



Distribution. — Occurs over a wide area in Europe and North America, apparently 

 also in North Africa, though I have seen only females from there (including Theobald's 

 type of C. sergenti) and am not absolutely certain of their identity. Some new records 

 are : Tunis (Tamerza, Langeron, $) ; Italy (Gorizia, Mik, S ?) ; Carniola (Wippach, 

 Handlirsch) ; Transcaspia (Amudaria, C. Ahnger). 



6. Culex hayashi, Yamada (fig. 12 e, f). 



Culex hayashi, Yamada, Dobuts. Z. Tokio, xxix, pp. 61-72 (1917). 



This differs from all other species known from the Palaearctic region in having 

 the male palpi straight and considerably shorter than the proboscis (about three- 

 quarters as long), but there are several other Oriental species with which it might 

 be confused, such as C. brevipalpis (Giles) and C. jenseni (Meij.). The male 

 hypopygium is also very distinct, on account of the structure of the mesosome and 

 the numerous plates on the lobe of the side-piece ; in the former point C. hayashi 

 much resembles the subgenus Lophoceratomyia, but it does not show any modification 

 of the male antermae, nor any flat scales on the top of the head ; it should perhaps 

 be placed in Dyar's subgenus Neoculex, if that is adopted. The species is unicolorous 

 brown, only the lower side of the abdomen somewhat lighter. The scaling is that 

 of a noi-mal Culex, but there seem to be some flat scales on the prothoracic lobes. 



