1907-] Records of the Indian Museum. 323 



2. Anopheles formosaensis. 



To this name, Theobald simply adds Tsuzuki — whether this 

 is the author, and from what locality it comes, or where described 

 he does not say. I have not met with the name of the species 

 elsewhere. 



3. Anopheles deceptor Donitz, 1902. 



Beit. Kennt. 3. d. Anoph., p. 60. 



Recorded from Sumatra. May belong to Nyssorhynchus. 

 There are two other species of " Anopheles " not alluded to in 

 Theobald's rev^'sion ('' Gen. Ins.") ; these are : — 



4. Anopheles culiciformis Cogill, 1903. 

 Jour. Bomb. So., xv, 333. 

 Recorded from India. 



5. Anopheles subpictus Grassi, 1899. 



Atti. R. Accad. Lincei. Rendic, viii, i. 



" India Orientalis." So given in Kertesz's " Catalogue of 

 Diptera " (I. 254), but I have not seen the species mentioned 

 elsewhere. 



MEGARHINUS Rob. Desv, 1827. 



Ess. Culic. in Mem. Soc. His. Nat. Paris, iii, 412. 

 Macq, 1827 Hist. Nat. Dipt. 

 Wlk. 1848 List. Dip. Br. Mus., i, i. 

 Skuse 1889 Pr. Linn. So. N. S. Wales, iii, p. 1720. 

 Theob. 1901 Mon. CuHc, i, 215, fig. 63, various parts insect, 



fig. 64, map of distribution, p. 218, table of species. 

 Theob. 1905 Gen. Ins. Fasc. 26, p. 12. 



I. M. amboinensis Doles., 1857. 



Nat. Tijd. Ned. Ind., xvi, 381 cf ; pi. v, 5 {Culex id.). 

 Giles, Handbk., ist Ed., 133 (translation of Doleschall). 



Id. id., 2nd Ed., 276. 

 Theob. Mon. Culic, i, 243 &■. 



Not uncommon in the bush in the dry season in Amboina, 

 according to Doleschall. Osten Sacken (Berl. Ent. Zeit., xxvi, 96) 

 questioned if this species was distinct from immisericors Wlk., but 

 it is accepted as such by Kertesz (Cat. Dipt.) and Theobald (Gen. 

 Ins.). 



An allied species suhuUfer Doleschall {Culex id.) is given by 

 Kertesz as a synonym of this species, but Theobald regards it as 



