404 Rtxords of the Indian Museum. [Vol. IV, 



manner. Another serious inconvenience in referring to this author's 

 work is the index, where the genera themselves are alphabetically 

 arranged, all the species of each genus forming a separate alpha- 

 betical list under each generic name. This plan is still retained 

 even in the fifth volume. So, unless the student knows to which 

 .genus this author refers each species, he has to search the whole 

 index. A single alphabetical list of specific names as is given in 

 the valuable Catalogue of Diptera by Kertesz would have much 

 faciUtated reference, and the genus of each could have l:)een entered 

 in a second column. 



In Blanchard's othervAdse admirable work he adopts a very 

 laborious method of quoting merely a reference date and letter 

 (rgoia, 1902a, 1902b, etc.) for each paper of each author, thus 

 necessitating an examination of his list of papers (given at the end 

 of the book) every time a quotation is desired. The amount of 

 additional and unnecessary labour entailed by this double reference 

 is enormous. 



The habit of authors on Culicidae of allowing the female to 

 take precedence of the male is in absolute defiance of zoological 

 rule, and it is to be regretted that Dr. L^eicester in his great paper 

 on the Malay species, has continued this practice, even though he 

 had before him males of the greater number of the species dealt 

 with. 



In connection with this question it is well to mention the case 

 of the Anopheline mosquito known as culicifacies, Giles. 



Giles originally described iinder that name, what afterwards 

 proved to be two distinct species (namely, his d- is now known as 

 ttirkhudi, Liston, and his 9 as eiilicifacies, Giles). 



Now, in accordance with the strict rules of zoological litera- 

 ture, as I have always understood them, in such a case the name 

 of the species is invariably retained for the cf , and a new name 

 provided for the 2 . This being so, the name culicifacies shov\& 

 have been retained for the male (now called tii,rkhudi), and the 

 female (still known as culicifacies) renamed. However, to avoid 

 further confusion the synonymy was not altered in my catalogue 

 nor in the present supplement, but it seems advisable to call 

 attention to the fact and to protest against the 9 taking prece- 

 dence of the cf in such cases. 



A brief review of the recently published works on Culicidae 

 may now be made. 



Mr. Theobald's 4th volume (Monog. Culicidae World) contains 

 notes (p. r) on the growing of Lcmna minor, L. arrhiza and other 

 duckweeds, on the surface of all unavoidable collections of water 

 as a preventive against the breeding of mosquitoes. Mr. Green 

 notes that they breed freely in the flowers of Heliconia hrasiliensis. 



On p. 3 Mr. Theobald gives a list of the species that are 

 known to be agents of infection. On p. 6 he gives Prof. Felt's 

 table for the identification of culicid larvae; on p. 11, Dr. Dyar's 

 grouping and formation of genera by cf genitalia. As a criticism 

 on the classification by larvae, Mr. Theobald remarks (referring to 



