88 Records of the Indian Museum. [VoL. XVII, 
CULICEDAE, 
The subdivision and arrangement of genera and species in this 
family has been a source of much difficulty. In the Anophelini 
there has been no hesitation in referring the bulk of the species to 
Anopheles itself, as is now done by most recent writers, the only 
other groups accorded generic rank here being Calvertina and Biro- 
nella. Chagasia, a non-oriental genus, was the only other one re- 
garded as valid in the Anophelini in my “ Critical Review.” The 
classification, however, of the rest of the Culicinae is still in a very | 
transitory state, and some attempt has been made to meet the 
views of others. A ceitain numter of the recently established 
genera are evidently valid, others appear entitled to subgeneric 
tank, whilst the remainder must be regarded as of indefinite taxo- 
nomic value at present. When a genus with all its species has been 
bodily sunk in another by Mr. Edwards, the synonymy has been 
at once accepted, as the sooner invalid generic names are perma- 
nently shelved the better. No doubt a good many other genera 
will be weeded out as synonymous when the oriental species have 
been thoroughly overhauled by systematists. 
In the present catalogue the subfamily Culicinae is divided 
merely into Anophelini and Culicini, as though the group Megar- 
hini is apparently distinct enough, it is more than can be said for 
the groups or sections dominated by such genera as Aedes, Culex, 
Sabethes, etc., so that while the juggling of genera and higher 
groups still continues even amongst those best fitted to dictate,' no 
harm will be done by lumping them all together under the general 
term Culicini without assigning it any definite taxonomic value. 
The accidental omission of the heading “Subfamily Megar- 
hininae”’ in both my Catalogue of Culicidae and the Supplement 
gave the impression that the genera concerned were to be considered 
Anophelines, which of course was never intended. 
Theobald’s sequence of genera has been mainly followed be- 
cause that author’s work is known to all students in this family, 
and also because of personal inability to dogmatise. 
As regards specific synonymity it has frequently been a case 
of “‘ when doctors disagree’’ both metaphorically and actually, 
and in such instances I have usually followed the latest writer, or 
whichever has had any purely entomological support. 
The wholesale overthrowing of a large proportion of the re- 
cently manufactured genera and species was early foretold by other 
systematists as well as by me, and the truth of the prophecy is 
visible in their continual reduction in almost every paper now 
published. It is to be hoped that the new species erected now- 
adays will prove to be founded on more reliable characters. 
As regards location of types in this family considerable diffi- 
culty has been experienced. Respecting Leicester’s species, Mr. 

1 There are, for instance. several genera which Mr. Edwards regards as ano- 
malous. ; 
