208 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



DO WE KNOW CULEX CONSOBRINUS, Desv. ? 



BY J. M. ALDRICH, MOSCOW, IDAHO. 



Desvoidy published this species in 1827, in the Memoirs of the 

 Society of Natural History of Paris, Vol. III., p. 408. The entire 

 description is as follows : 



" 27. CULEX CONSOBRINUS, R. D. 



Simillimus praecedenti ; palpis, tarsisque bruneis. 



Long. 3 lineas. 



Omnino similis CuUci pipienti : differt solum palpis tarsisque 

 brunicosis, non flavis. 



Habitat in Pennsylvania, (Musfeum Dejeanianum.)" 



The species preceding this, to which reference is made, is Culex 

 pipiens; the length in that is also given as three lines. Nothing is said 

 about the palpi and tarsi, further than the expression " pedes fiavescentes." 



This species remained unrecognized until 1896, when Coquillett, in 

 Howard and Marlatt's Bulletin on " Household Insects" (Bull. 4, n. sen, 

 Div. of Ent.), claimed to have identified it with a common and wide- 

 spread form. He gave the following synonyms : Functor, Kirby ; 

 itnpatietis a.nd ping^uis, Walker, and inortiatus, WiUiston. The synonymy 

 had been made out entirely from descriptions, save in the case of 

 i?iorfiatus, of which Williston's type was in the National Museum for 

 comparison. In Circular No. 40, Coquillett adds as probable synonyms, 

 A?iopheles aimuiimatius, Van der Wulp, and Ctilex testaceus, Van der 

 Wulp. 



Dr. Howard transmitted specimens of this supposed consobri?ms to 

 Theobald, who accepted them at their face value and redescribed the 

 species in his Monograph of the Culicidse, Vol. II., p. 78. He found 

 from Kirby's type in the British Museum that /««f/^r is a distinct species, 

 which he redescribed on p. 75. As to Walker's species, he makes the 

 following notes : 



" Culex iinpatiejis, Walker, may be this species (Coquillett's 

 consobrinus), the type answering in nearly all respects, but the abdominal 

 banding differs. 



" Culex pi/iguis, Walker, may also be synonymous, but I do not 

 know where the type is, and Walker's descriptions seem almost valueless, 

 judging from the types I have seen." 



July, 1903. 



