THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 209 



Speaking of Anopheles annulimanus, Theobald says (1,213): 

 " Coquillett thinks this species does not belong to the genus Anopheles 

 at all. The description, he seems to think, applies to a male of Culex 

 consobrinus, Desvoidy ; but in this I can scarcely agree, and do not think 

 such an authority as Van der Wulp would commit such an error." 



As to Culex testaceus, Theobald received a specimen from Lake 

 Simcoe, Ontario, which he identified as this species, making it distinct 

 from the supposed consobrimcs. 



Now let us see whether the colour of the palpi and tarsi, as indicated 

 by Desvoidy, is sufficient to distinguish a species from pipiens. Taking 

 the full discussion of pipiens given by Theobald (Monogr., Vol. II., pp. 

 132-136), it is immediately seen that the female has "palpi thick, brown, 

 with some grayish scales " ; also " tarsi uniformly dark brown." In the 

 male the palpi are " light ochraceous brown," and the " tarsi dark brown.'' 

 Desvoidy's specimen was in all probability a female. It appears, there- 

 fore, that his distinctive characters are normal in pipie?is ! At any rate, 

 pipiens is a variable species, and easily includes forms with all his 

 characters. 



The size given by Desvoidy is the same for both species, 3 lines. If 

 I understand this correctly, it is about 6 mm. Theobald gives 4.5 to 5 

 mm. ^ox pipiens, and 6 to 7 mm. for consobritius. The advantage here is 

 perhaps a little on the side of a distinct species ; still, Desvoidy expressly 

 makes it the same size as pipiens, which he speaks of as a very common 

 species, so it works about as well one way as the other. 



When I came to the conclusion, some time ago, that the real 

 consobri7ius is nothing but pipiens, which is known to occur in the United 

 States as well as Europe, I wrote to Theobald and Coquillett in regard to 

 the matter. The former replied that he had accepted the species on the 

 supposition that Coquillett had examined the type of Desvoidy. The 

 latter only wrote, " Repeated revisions of my first reference of Culex 

 consobritius have not caused me to change my opinion in regard to it. 

 Size and colouring both apply better to this form than to pipiens or any 

 of our other species." 



I have shown exactly how much there is in the matter of "size and 

 colouring." 



The species which is now passing under the name of consobrinus I 

 think should be known as inornatus, Williston. It was described in the 

 Diptera of the Death Valley Expedition, North American Fauna, No. 7, 



