118 Records of the Indian Museum. [VoL. XVII, 
Megarhinus tmmisericors, Walk., or amboinensis, Dol., Ost. 
Sack., Berl. Ent. Zeits. XXVI, 96. 
Worcesteria grata. Banks, Phil. Jour. Sci. 1, 780, 7 2, pl. pal- 
pus o&, genitalia @, cross-veins @ @, scales, etc. (1906): 
Theob., Monog. Culic. V, 111: Brun., Rec, Ind. Mus. I, 326. 
Culex regius, Thwaites, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. VIII, 102 (1864).! 
Toxorhynchites regius, Edw., Bull. Ent. Res. VII, 202. 
? Megarhinus subu’tfer, Dol., Nat. Tijd. Ned. Ind. XIV, 382 
(1857). 
Common and widely distributed in the East. Bhim Tal, 
1g— 22-x-06 [Annandale]; Sikkim, 1800 ft., vi [Dudgeon]; Sylhet, 
5-v-05 and vi; Chittagong, 3-ix-08; Aijal, Lushai Hills, 3600 ft., 
24-iv-04; Upper Burma [Watson]; Calcutta, i, vi, vii, viii [An- 
nandale, etc.]; Peradeniya (Botan. gardens), 1500 ft., not 
uncommon; Pundaluoya, Ceylon, 4000 ft. [Green and T. B. 
Fletcher]; Trincomalee Hot Wells, Travancore, Mysore, Macas- 
sar; Andaman Is., Waigion; North Ceram; Mysol; Settleberg 
(Huon Gulf), Papua [Biro]; Bago, Negros Occidental, Cebu 
(Phil. Is.). Types of immisericors and gilest in British Museum 
in bad condition; of C. vegius in Hope coll., Oxford Univer- 
sity; of W. grata in Entom. Coll., Bureau of Science, Manila, 
Nos. 6071, #7 9. 
inornatus Walk., Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. VIII, 102, 7 (Megarh- 
nus) (1865). 
Megarhinus tnornatus, Theob., Monog. Culic. I, 223,@ 2, pl. vii, 
26, 7, 25; 2 (both full ins. col.): Giles, Handbk, etc:, 137, 
2nd ed., 271, 7 2 (Megarhina imnornata, lapsus): Blanch., 
Moust:,.223,.0") 9. 
Toxorhynchites inornatus, Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. I, 325; IV, 436. 
Papua. Type @ @ in British Museum. 
leicesteri Theob., Entom. XXXVII, 36, @ 2 (1904). 
Theob., Mong. Culic. IV, 142, w 9: Leices, Culic. Malaya, 59, 
@ 39 Brun Rec; and. Mais, 325) eV Ae 
Kuala Lumpur; Papua. Types in British Museum. 

! I decline to accept Edwards’ suggestion to adopt the name regius by 
Ternent (1859) in place of immisericors. A ‘‘ description’’ of aline or two (in this 
case six words only) is no scientific description at all properly so called, even in the 
case of a species recognizable by it. Moreover, there is, as Edwards himself 
admits, a second though rare species of Toxorhynchites occurring in Ceylon and 
presumably the ‘‘description’’ of vegius (‘one with a formidable hooked pro- 
boscis ’’) would equally apply to the other species, minimus, Theob., the char- 
acter being generic. Ternent is not known, so far as I am aware, as an entomo- 
logist, the species was not scientifically described nor is ‘‘Ceylon ” the journal in 
which it was published a scientific publication. 
In the same paper (Bull. Ent. Res. VII, 202) Edwards notes having found on 
re-examining Walker's types of 7mmisericors, from Celebes, that they are different 
from the species generally known from the East under this name, and he believes 
them probably identical with swbulifer, Dol. 1 do not care, without a close exam- 
ination of Doleschall’s type if such be still in existence, to alter the present view 
of 2mmisericors (that is, Theobald’s), but if Edwards’ latest opinion should prove 
correct, it leaves Theobald’s form without a name. 
