434 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol.. IV, 



** ANOPHELES/' sensu lata. 

 ** Anopheles ** arabicnsis, Patton. 



Add. Ref. — Theob., Monog. Culic, v, 8i, cf $ , fig. 34, cf 9 

 palpi. 



N.B. — Theobald seems vague in his opinion on this. From 

 damaged $ 9 sent him b}' the author of the species, he considered 

 them identical with A. wellcomei, Theob., but Patton had already- 

 sent the species to Dr. Stephens, who compared it with the type 

 of wellcomei and pronounced them distinct. In vol. v, 82, Theo- 

 bald sa^'s : " it is certainly not an Anopheles,'" and immediately 

 after he says a damaged specimen sent him by Patton could not 

 be separated from wellcomei, Theob. In his last volume he puts 

 the species under " Anopheles.'' 



** Anopheles *' culiciformis, Cogill. 

 Theobald confesses inability to trace this species. 



** Anopheles " deceptor, Don. 

 Removed to Myzomyia. 



** Anopheles '' pictus, Lw., 1845. 



Dipt. Beit., Posen, p. 4. 



Theobald still (Monog. Culic, iv) thinks this the same as 

 Grassi's pseudopictus , but defers a definite opinion until he can 

 compare specimens from Rhodes (Asia Minor). Dr. Thin records 

 it from Haut Tonkin and Harioi. " In both cases M. sinejisis is 

 evidently referred to as an allied species" (Theob., Monog. 

 Culic, iv, 124). Theobald also says here that Giles is wrong in 

 considering Myzomyia leptomeres, Theob., as a synonym of pictus. 



** Anopheles *' subpictus, Grassi. 

 This species cannot be traced. 



** Anopheles ** vincenti I^averan. 



Erratum. — My " correction ' ' of Theobald's quotation of date 

 and volume (igoi and liii) is an error, as both his references are 

 correct; yet in vol. v, 84, he perpetuates my previous error as 

 regards the volume by quoting xxiii. 



'' Sub-Family MEGARHINI NAE." 



Add. Ref. — Blanch., Moust., 218, figs. 184-185. 

 Dr. Leicester (CuUc. Malaya, 4S\ is averse to the subdivi- 

 sion of this " sub-family " of Theobald, and observes that though 



