1912.] E. Brunetti: Catalogue of Oriental Ctdicidae. 407 



unnecessary to copy the whole of the data supplied in this author's 

 paper (which is easily accessible) in cases of very common or 

 widely distributed species, especially if the localities therein given 

 are already in m^' Catalogue. 



In such cases the species are reported in this paper as ■ ■ com- 

 mon throughout India," etc., as easy reference can be made to 

 exact details. 



Major S. P. James in ''Anew arrangement of the Indian 

 Anophelinae" (Rec. Ind.Mus., iv,q5 — 109) criticizes the evanescent 

 nature of Anopheline genera, noting that if niaciilipennis , Mg., be 

 the type of AnophJes, s. s., there is no Indian species of the genus. 

 He divides the Indian Anoplielina into two groups, those with, 

 and those without abdominal scales. Of the ist group he admits 4 

 genera — Neostethopheles, gen. nov. (pi. i), with aitkeni, James, as 

 type; Myzomvia, Blanch, (pi. i), with culicifacics, Giles, as type ; 

 Patagiamyia, gen. nov. (pi. i), type i:,igas, Giles ; and Pyretophorus, 

 Blanch, (pi. i), with palestincnsis, Theob., as " type example."' 



In the 2nd group he gives these genera : NyssorhyuLhus, Blanch, 

 (pi. ii), type maculaius, Iheob. ; Myzorhynchus, Blanch, (pi iv). 

 type barbirosiris, V. Wulp ; Cellia, Theob (pi . iii) , type pulchcrrima . 

 Theob.; Neocellia, Theob. (pi. iii), type indica, Theob.; Aldrichia, 

 Theob., type error , Theob.] Nyssonivzoinyia , gen. nov. (pi. ii),type 

 rossii, Giles; Christopher sia, gen. nov. (pi. iv), type hallii. 



The two new genera proposed, N eostetho f^helcs and Pata- 

 giamyia, are not admitted in the present Catalogue, as my manu- 

 script was practically completed when these genera were set up, and 

 also because it is quite evident that the workers in mosquitoes are 

 further off than ever from any definite agreement amongst them- 

 selves as to either the number or the limits of the genera to be 

 recognized.'^ The third genus proposed bv James — Christophcrsia— 

 is acknowled -jed here as it comprises one species only, which has 

 not previously been located in any other genus. 



In the 2nd edition of Messrs. James and Liston's '' A Mono- 

 graph of the Anopheline Mosquitoes of India ' ' a good deal of 

 additional matter is introduced. Th^ir classification into Mega- 

 rhinae, Limatinae, Anophelinae, Aedinae and Culicinae need not 

 be criticised here. Their suggestion (p. 15) to make use of the 

 botanical terms to describe the different shapes of the scales seems 

 an excellent one, as the terms now u-ed are ambiguous and have 

 not the same meaning for every author. Collecting and mounting 

 are detailed, but it is certainly time that the method of using 



• The true generic type is costalis but has not been seen by James, and. &^ 

 he remnrks, th^ t'l'racic scales mav be different. In any case hewever costalis 

 must still rema n the tvpe of the genus. 



■' In tl e •' Bulletin of Entomological Research" for May 191 1 Mr J. W. \V. 

 v'^tephens calmly announces that •• A <aref '1 exnmination with a poi ket 'ens ( ! \ 

 shiuld enabl- you to slate almost with certainty whether or no all the Anophe- 

 lines you have caught are of the same .species." Yet those who have studied 

 them for years are, as stated, still very much at variance as to specific limits. 



