92 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vo.L. XVII, 
Sect. ANOPHELINI. 
Anopheles, Mg:! 
Mg., Syst. Besch. I, 10 (1818). 
och. F: Austr 2 
GENOTYPE, A. maculipennis Mg., by general 
European acceptance. 
Conchyliastes, Theob., in Howard’s ‘‘ Mosquitoes,’’ 235 (1901). 
GENOTYPE, Culex posticatus W., as musicus Say, by Coquil- 
lett’s designation. 
Cycloleppteron, Theob., Monog. Culic. II, 312 (1g01). 
Id., td., Jour. Trop. Med. IV, 234, nom. nud. (190T). 
GENOTYPE, Anopheles grabhami Theob., by original designa- 
tion. 
Cyclolepidopteron, Blanch. (Cycloleppteron, emend.), Moust., 185 
(1905). 
Grassia, Theob., Jour. Trop. Med. V, 181 (1902). 
GENOTYPE, Anopheles rossit Giles, by original designation. 
Myzomyia, Blanch., Comp. rend. Soc. Biol. Paris, LIV, 795 
(1902); nom. nov. for Grassia, Theob., preoce. Fisch., 1885. 
Id., Theob., Monog. Culic. TIT, 12,” 24; IV, 41, 42, tab. spp.; 
V, 16, tab.spp.: d.; Gen. Ins., Fase, 2657: Blanch | Mouse 
177: James and List., Monog. Anoph. Mosq. Ind., 2nd ed., 
40: James, Rec. Ind. Mus. IV, 98: Leices., Culic. Malaya, 
23: Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. I, 305: IV, 417: X, 66 (mia, 
lapsus): Alcock, Entom. Medic. Officers, 79. 
Howardia, Theob., Jour. Trop. Med. V, 181 (1902). 
GENOTYPE (presumably), Anopheles costalis Lw. 
Pyretophorus, Blanch., Comp. rend. Soc. Biol. Paris LIV, 795 
(1902) ; nom. nov. for Howardia, Theob., preoce. Dalla Torre, 
1897 in Insecta. 
Id., Theob., Monog. Culic. III, 66; IV, 63, 64, list and tab. 
spp.; V, 36, tab. spp.:7d., Gen. Ins., Fasc: 26,8: Blaneu 
Moust., 186: James and List., Monog. Anoph. Mosq. Ind., 
and ed., 41: James, Rec. Ind. Mus. IV, 99: Brun., loc. 
cit., 1, 312; 1V, 423; X, 7o: Leices., Calics Malaya, 37- 
Rossia, Theob., Jour. Trop. Med. V, 181 (1902). 
GENOTYPE, Anopheles sinensis Wied., by original designa- 
tion. 
Myzorhynchus, Blanch., Comp. rend. Soc. Biol. Paris LIV, 795 
(1902): nom. nov. for Rossia, Theob., preocc. Owen, 1838 in 
Mollusca, also used by Bonaparte in same year. 

i Full references to this well-known genus, sensu lato, are not given, as 
Schiner’s description amply portrays the view of the older authors. These refer- 
ences can be gleaned from Kertesz’s Catalogue. For interesting descriptions of 
larvae of Malayan Anopheles see Stanton, ‘* The Larvae of Malayan Anopheles,”’ 
Bull. Ent. Res. V1, 159. For tables to determine Indian Anophelines see James, 
Paludism, No. 2, 52. ree 
2 Theobald here suggests fumesta, Giles, as type of Myzomyza, which is impos- 
sible, having already selected vossii. Edwards has noted this. 
