342 F. W. EDWARDS. 



widely separated than in C. tipuliformis, and the femoral and tibial stripes, though 

 quite distinct, are rather narrower in this species. The resemblance to C. pipiens 

 is much more close than in the case of C. tipuliformis, the leg-markings affording 

 the main external distinction . The larva is undescribed ; it was found b}^ Dr . 

 Lamborn in company with that of C. faiigans. 



Distribution. — So far as our present knowledge goes, this species is confined to 

 the eastern part of the Palaearctic and Oriental regions, into which C. tipuliformis 

 apparently does not extend. Hong Kong {Macfarlane) ; Sikkim {Wyville- Thompson) ; 

 Vladivostok and River Amur [Wnorcntaiis :^ Helsingfors Museum) ; Shanghai 

 Lamborn). 



16. Culex laticinctus, Edw. 



Culex laticinctus, Edwards, J. Proc. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, ix, p. 49 (1913). 



This species differs markedly from C. pipiens, the one to which it approaches 

 most nearly in size and appearance, in the pure white abdominal bands, which are 

 as broad as or broader than the dark bands which alternate with them. Thg male 

 palpi are no longer than the proboscis, and are less hairy than those of C. pipiens. 

 The prothoracic lobes often show a number of flat scales on the lower part. The 

 hypopygium is not unlike that of C. oricntalis, especially in the form and hairiness 

 of the side-piece, but the appendages of the lobe and the structure of the mesosome 

 are different. 



The rather remarkable larva has been described and figured by Storey as " Culex 

 sp. no. 2258." 



Distribution. — Throughout the Mediterranean region ; Canary Islands (Orotava, 

 Graham-Smith) ; southern Spain (Aguilas, G. Boag) ; southern France, and as far 

 north as Paris (Seguy) ; Tunis (Tamerza, Langeron ; Djerba, in coll. Bezzi) ; Ana- 

 tolia (Budrum, Mus. Civ. Geneva); Cilicia, Syria and Palestine {Barraud ; Mt. 

 Carmel, Austen; Jerusalem, Goldberg); Egypt (Storey); Arabia (Muscat, Gill). 



17. Culex perexiguus, Theobald (figs. 17, 18). 



Culex perexiguus, Theobald, Mon. Cul. iii, p. 199 (1903). 



The very small size of this species, together with the narrow white (not ochreous- 

 white) abdominal bands, and the pale stripe on the outer side of the hind tibia (not 

 always very clearly marked, and in the male sometimes indistinguishable), will 

 serve to separate it from other members of the group with dark tarsi and basally 

 banded abdominal tergites. Apart from this, and the aedoeagal structure, C. perexi- 

 guus may be known by the colovu- of the mesonotal scales, dark brown mixed with 

 brassy ochreous. 



I cannot detect any difference whatever between the adults of C. perexiguus 

 and the West African form of C. univittatus, either in external characters or male 

 hypopygial structure. The larvae, however, seem to be utterly different. Some 

 confusion has existed regarding the larvae of C. univittatiis, but Dr. Ingram 

 assures me that the larva described and figured by him and Dr. Macfie (Bull. Ent. 

 Res. X, p. 68) was identified by the isolation method, and he is sure that no error 

 occurred. The figure indicates a larva similar in many respects to that of C. quasi- 

 gelidus, but with several remarkable features, such as the possession of only a single 

 pair of minute siphonal tufts and an incomplete ring on the anal segment. 



Larvae of C. perexigwis sent from Palestine by Capt. Barraud differ in practically 

 every detail from the larva described by Ingram and Macfie, almost the only point 



