1914-] E. Brunetti : Review of Genera in Culicidae. 17 



knowledge of the values of ranks in other groups of the animal 

 kingdom is, or should be, imperative in any author who aspires 

 to new classifications on weak characters, more especially if in 

 direct defiance of the expressed views of systematists. In no group 

 of insects has such a lamentable want of technical knowledge been 

 shown than in the writings of the modern authors on Culicidae,^ 

 almost none of whom are dipterologists ; in fact they include, as 

 Professor Williston has observed, '' some indeed, whose only papers 

 on Entomology have been those proposing new subfamilies! "* 



He continues, " Their ignorance of related diptera has more 

 than once been deplorably shown by writers on the Culicidae''' 

 adding, " no one is competent to discuss philosophically the classi- 

 fication of any group of animal life who is not well grounded in the 

 principles of taxonomy as applied to related animals/' * * * * 

 because " the mosquitoes are not organisms isolated from all other 

 living creatures." 



He further, whilst accrediting "the right kind of scientific 

 work" with its full dues, postulates that opinion with the 

 observation that "one must learn the value of characters in 

 classification before he can be successful in instructing others or in 

 making his discoveries known. And this knowledge can only be 

 acquired by long and faithful study of hving things In days gone 

 by the profuse maker of genera was ridiculed, and his labours were 

 largely ignored, but I fear even Desvoidy's shade would turn pale 

 with envy in the contemplation of some of the proposed genera of 

 the modern culicidologists" (Man. N.A. Dipt., 3rd Ed. Intro. 15). 

 He vigorously denounces the numerous proposed genera and sub- 

 families in this family. 



Rondani as well as Desvoidy, I believe, suffered to some extent 

 for the same reason, and many of his genera are still unrecognised 

 owing to insufficient characterisation. 



As regards classification above the rank of genera, this has no 

 place in the present paper; suffice it to note that every culicid 

 writer adopts a system more or less modified to meet his own 

 views. It seems incumbent on me, however, to notice a very 

 elaborate colour scheme classification offered by Major Christophers 

 quite recently in Aiiophelini, and though I cannot herein examine 

 it critically, it is certain that the characters used in separating 

 the groups are very indefinite and open to various interpretations 

 according to the reader, whilst it is incredible that the variation 

 of species will not render the tables to a great extent inoperative. 



• With the exception of one or two, hke Col. Alcock and Mr. Edwards, who 

 have endeavoured to stem the tide of genus and subfamily making 



•2 Criticising the 2nd edition of James and Liston's '• Monog. Anoph. Mosq. 

 India " Mr. C S. Banks savs, " Had the authors stopped at ' describing the different 

 species in such manner that any specimen collected [might] be easily identified,' 

 their work would have been less liab'e to adverse criticism by systematists, but 

 they, like so many medical men not trained in systematic zoology, have attempted 

 to dabble in generic legerdemain, thereby increasing the confusion already present 

 in culicid classification and adding to the burden of synonymy which must be 

 borne, not by men of their profession but by the already encumbered entomolo- 

 gist." (Phil Jour. Sci. vii. Sect. D., p. 207, June 1912.) 



