1920.] EH. BRUNETTI: Oriental & S. Asiatic Nemocera. 155 
Culex, Linn. 
Syst. Ent., Ed. X, 602 (1758). 
Sch., Fauna Austr. II, 625: Giles, Handbk., 
etc., 186; 2nd ed., 386: Theob., Monog. Culic. 
T, 326; IV 387; _V,, 323, tab.spp.: td.,Gen. 
Ins., Fasc. 26, 24; 25, list spp. world: Blanch., 
Moust., 267, 269, tab. spp. in 9 sections; 627, 
supp. tab. ; 372, list of uncertain species: Leices.., 
Culic. Malaya, 138, tab. of groups: Brun., Rec. 
Ind. Mus. I, 342; IV, 465; X, 39, Culex group 
of genera ; 42, subgenera ; 43, synonyms: Alcock, 
Ent. Med. Off., 98: How., Dyar and Knab, 
Mosq.) Ne Wien peice. ath pt. 1,255. list 
synonyms ; 217, chars. 
GENOTYPE, Culex pipiens I,., by universal ac- 
ceptation. 
Lutzia, Theob., Monog. Culic. III, 155 (1903).! 
How., Dyar and Knab, Mosq. N. Amer., etc., ITI, 466. 
GENOTYPE, Culex bigotit Bell , by original designation. 
Melanoconops, Theob., Monog. Culic. III, 178, nom. nud. 
(903).” 
Lasioconops, Theob., loc. czt., III, 235 (1903). 
GENOTYPE, L. potcilipes, id., sp. nov., loc. cit. 
Melanoconion, Theob., Monog. Culic. III, 238 (1903). 
Theob., éoc. cit., IV, 507; V, 455, tab. spp.: id., Gen. 
Ins., Fasc. 26, 32: Blanch., Moust., 395 (Melanoconium, 
emend.): Glen Herrick, Ent. News., 382: Leices:, Culic. 
Malaya, 136: Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. I, 360; IV, 484; X 
65. 
GENOTYPE, Culex atratus Theob., by Dyar’s designation. 
Heptaphlebomyia, Theob., Monog. Culic. III, 336 (1903). 
Theob., Joc. cit., IV, 531; V, 481: Gen. Ins., Fasc. 26, 41: 
zd., Entom. XXX, 156. 
GENOTYPE, H. simplex Theob., sp. nov., loc. cit. 
Culicella, Felt., N. Yk. State Mus. Bull. 79: Ent. 22, App., 
Pp. 391¢ (1904). 
How., Dyar and Knab, Mosq. N. Amer., etc., III, 457 
(as subgenus). 
GENOTYPE, Culex dyari Coq., by original designation. 
Pseudoheptaphlebomyia, Ventrillon, Bull. Mus. Paris XI, 427, 
nom, nud. (1905). 
GENOTYPE, P. madagascarensis Ventr. 
Neoculex, id., loc. cit., VII, 47 (1905). 
GENOTYPE, Culex territans Walk., by originai designation. 
d 
J 

! Lutzia is ranked as a valid genus by Howard, Dyar and Knab, with a sug'- 
gestion (p. 218), that it might be a subgenus of Cw/ex, the same opinion applying 
to Carrollia also. 
? The name merely used in the text and not set up as a new genus even as a 
nom. nud, . 
