228 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. VI, 



Moreover, in the light of the definite information of the very- 

 short 1st tarsal joint in culiciformis as specially supplied me by 

 Mr, Hill after an examination of examples of the species in the 

 British Museum, it seems almost certain that Schiner also never 

 saw the species, as otherwise he would have corrected Loew's 

 error. It was not a case of the point being overlooked, since 

 Schiner accepted the differentiation of the genera on lyoew's charac- 

 ter, — the relative lengths of the metatarsus and 2nd tarsal joints. 



CoquiUett, recognizing Loew's error in selecting the wrong group 

 of species for his new genus, proposed Sayomyia ^ for those species 

 with long metatarsi , taking as his t^^pe punctipennis, Say., a North 

 American species,* and until recently this generic term has been 

 in general use for those species of " Corethra" sensu lato, apart from 

 the congeners of culiciformis. 



The recognition quite recently (1910) by CoquiUett himself 

 that Chaoborus, Lichtenstein (1900), is synonymous with Corethra 

 itself and antedates Meigen's genus by three years, throws all the 

 species lately placed in Sayomyia into this ancient genus. 



In my previous notes on this subject ^ the identity is explained. 

 Regarding some other species, manilensis , Sch., was described 

 only four years after that author published his "Fauna Austriaca," 

 so that it is evident it must be a Chaoborus also. 



*' Corethra asiatica," Giles, has the metatarsus distinctly longer 

 (about i^ to i| times) than the 2nd joint, which latter is a little 

 longer than the 3rd. It is therefore a Chaoborus. 



"Sayomyia cornfordi," Theob., I am informed by Mr. Hill, 

 who has kindly examined the type on my behalf, has the metatar- 

 sus i-| times as long as the 2nd which is if times as long as the 

 3rd, the remaining joints being subequal, each a little shorter than 

 the 3rd. Cornfordi therefore is also a Chaoborus. 



Although I quite agree with Prof. Kertesz in believing only 

 two sub-families should be allowed (Culicinae and Corethrinae *) , 

 as has been always customary until the connection between mos- 

 quitoes and malaria drew the attention of many students to the 

 subject who were not dipterologists, it is difficult to understand 

 why he places '' Mochlonyx," Lw. (with the three species cw^ici- 

 formis, Deg., vclutinus, Ruthe, and effoetus, Wlk.,^ which of course 

 are true Corethrae), in the sub-family Culicinae, retaining " Corethra " 

 in Corethrinae for those species that I have shown have to be rele- 

 gated to Chaoborus. 



So far as my information carries me, Corethra, Mg., sensu 

 stricto, will contain only the two species culiciformis, Degeer, and 

 velutina, Ruthe, the latter with effoetus, Wlk., as a synonym. 



1 Can. Ent., xxxv, 189. 2 Journ. Acad. Sci. Phil., iii, 16 {Corethra, id.). 



3 Rec. Ind. Mus., iv, 317 (1911). 



* In my catalogue of Oriental Culicidae published recently I admitted mere 

 than two sub-families merely out of compliment to workers in this family, and I 

 may do so for the same reason in my forthcoming extensive supplement, but I 

 am convinced that from a zoological point of view the two sub-families are quite 

 sufficient. 



^ This is synonymous with velutina, Ruthe. 



".? :? 



